The wise people of humanity agreed from ancient times to reward the benefactor and punish the offender. It was not difficult for the old and the later to approve the reward for the benefactors, or at the very least it was not as difficult as establishing the appropriate punishment for each crime separately.
Whenever a people set laws and penalties for the offenders and criminals, people came after them to reduce the rulings of some and tighten others. Rather, the people of the same age differed in the formulation of penalties after their occurrence, so the laws and nations resorted to setting penalties for common crimes in society in advance, so that judges could refer to them when trying someone who had committed a specific crime.
Peoples and nations differed in defining some crimes, so we find, for example, that using some drugs and establishing consensual sexual relations is not considered a crime for some peoples and states, while some countries consider it one of the most severe crimes and its punishment is severe.
Does the guilty deserve to return to normal life?
A person, whether we like it or not, is subject to committing mistakes, and he may encroach on his brother and commit crimes against him, so it was necessary to establish and legislate the punishment as a healer and an end to such transgressions.
However, committing mistakes and some crimes does not negate the fact that the culprit is a person who has the ability to reform and guide. Take an example In the Sahih on the authority of Umar, may God be pleased with him: (That a man used to drink wine and used to be whenever he was brought to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, he commanded his skin, so a man said: God cursed him, what is given to him, what is given to him, what is given to him, what is given to him, what is given to him, what is given to him, what is to be given to him. May God bless him and grant him peace: “Do not curse him, for he loves God and His Messenger”). Here, the Holy Prophet explained to the Companions that the occurrence of a person’s guilt repeatedly does not deny the existence of a good seed within him and that he does not deserve cursing or expulsion and discrimination in society.
Is the solution in heavy penalties?
One of the characteristics of the punishment is that it is appropriate to the crime committed and the perpetrator’s determination to commit the crime, so that it does not exceed the scale of the crime or be less than it. It is unreasonable that the penalty for crossing a traffic light is death or life imprisonment, and at the same time it should be a deterrent and not be ridiculous, which encourages its repetition.
Harsh punishments are characterized by being deterrent, which makes the intent to commit the crime reluctant to commit it, but severe punishments have some negatives, among the most important of which, and as previously mentioned, that a person is vulnerable to committing mistakes. Good citizens, and may even push them to take revenge on those who have gone too far in punishing them.
The death penalty.. A problem or a solution?
Excel The death penalty As for other punishments, they are the most severe punishments, and due to the sanctity of the human spirit in most of the laws and nations, the execution of the death penalty was limited to a narrow range of heinous crimes such as premeditated murder and high treason for the nation.
However, the death penalty has several drawbacks, the most important of which is that it cannot be reversed once it is executed. For example, if a person accused of murder is found innocent after his execution, he cannot be brought back to life. Therefore, the lack of evidence before the judge drops the penalty from the guilty to a discretion or innocence, and this is stipulated in the religion when it was committed to us. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, to ward off the boundaries of suspicions.
Likewise, when the judiciary follows a dictatorial regime, it may issue arbitrary death sentences against innocent people simply for opposing the dictatorial regime. Whereas if they were sentenced to prison, they might be able to get out of jail as soon as this system lapses from power; Therefore, Amnesty International and many countries in the civilized world have permanently abolished the death penalty from their penal code.
that Abolish a penalty Final execution has several benefits, the most important of which is ensuring that unfair sentences are not committed against political opponents in authoritarian countries, and it also guarantees that the death penalty will never be carried out against innocent people who are accused of crimes they did not commit but were convicted of corruption in the judicial system.
But the abolition of the death penalty will raise the number of prisoners in some countries to record numbers and the consequent high expenditures on countries to guard and care for these prisons, and it will also increase the likelihood of hardened criminals meeting with new criminals who have no criminal past, which increases the risk of new criminals learning criminal methods Gruesome top criminals and execute them upon release from prison.
Consequently, we find that states may be forced to implement the death sentence to avoid the previous problems. Therefore, the United Nations stipulated that the countries that consider the death penalty necessary have some safeguards that ensure the protection of the rights of people facing a death sentence, including:
- In countries where the death penalty has not been abolished, the death penalty may only be imposed for the most serious crimes, provided that it is understood that its scope should not exceed intentional crimes that lead to fatal or other extremely dangerous consequences.
- The death penalty may not be imposed except in the case of a crime in which the law provides, at the time of its commission, the death penalty, provided that it is understood that if the rule of law becomes ruled after committing the crime to impose a lighter penalty, the criminal benefits from that.
- The death penalty shall not be imposed on persons who did not reach the age of eighteen at the time of the commission of the crime, and the death sentence shall not be enforced against pregnant women, new mothers, or persons who have become mentally ill.
- The death penalty may only be imposed when the guilt of the accused person is based on clear and convincing evidence that leaves no room for any alternative interpretation of the facts.
- The death penalty may only be carried out according to a final judgment issued by a competent court after legal procedures that provide all possible guarantees to secure a fair trial, similar at least to the guarantees contained in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right of any person suspected of committing a crime It could be punishable by death or an accused person having access to adequate legal aid at all stages of the trial.
- Everyone sentenced to death has the right to appeal to a higher court, and steps should be taken to make this appeal compulsory.
- Everyone sentenced to death has the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence, and pardon or commutation may be granted in all cases of the death penalty.
- The death penalty shall not be carried out until the appeal procedures or any procedures related to the pardon or commutation of the sentence are decided.
- When the death penalty does occur, it is carried out in such a way that it results in only the minimum possible suffering.
Penalties are a necessity without which a fair judicial system and social satisfaction cannot be established, but the implementation of penalties – especially severe punishments – must be reconsidered in their formulation and the mechanism for their implementation in a way that preserves society’s security and stability and in a way that achieves justice not only for the victim, but also for the offender, allowing him to return to a good citizen. . If the criminal deserves the death penalty, then it should be within a context that preserves the dignity of the human being within the religious, legal and ethical frameworks and that it is not used unjustly.