Lebanon debates ending capital punishment

Source: Nida Al Watan – Gabriel Mrad

The draft law aimed at abolishing the death penalty is set to be discussed today by the parliamentary Administration and Justice Committee, chaired by MP Georges Adwan, in a session expected to mark a pivotal moment in the path toward modernizing Lebanon’s penal policy. According to information obtained by Nida Al Watan, an advanced parliamentary inclination favors approving the proposal, in a step reflecting a gradual shift in perspectives on criminal justice and placing Lebanon before a long-awaited legal and human rights milestone.

The proposal aligns with a growing international trend toward abolishing capital punishment, after more than 140 countries abolished it either legally or in practice, making its continued inclusion in Lebanese legislation increasingly appear as an exception inconsistent with the evolution of the global human rights framework.

According to its supporters, the proposal does not aim to weaken deterrence or disregard the suffering of victims, but rather to shift penal policy from the logic of irreversible ultimate punishment to that of balanced humanitarian justice, founded simultaneously on protecting society and preserving human dignity.

Between the text and reality

Despite the continued existence of legal provisions stipulating the death penalty, no execution has been carried out in Lebanon since 2004, effectively placing the country among those that maintain an undeclared moratorium on executions.

From this perspective, supporters of the proposal argue that its adoption would end the existing contradiction between legal text and actual practice, transforming the suspension of executions from an unwritten reality into a clear legal rule, thereby reinforcing legal certainty and consolidating clarity in the state’s penal policy.

International commitments and human rights pressure

Advocates of abolition base their position on clear constitutional and human rights foundations, foremost among them the right to life enshrined in international conventions, particularly the United Nations’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Lebanon is a party.

They also point out that the United Nations has called since 2007 for a moratorium on executions as a step toward abolition, and that Lebanon has voted in favor of some of these resolutions or abstained from voting, in what has been regarded as an indication of a gradual move toward alignment with the United Nations approach.

Should the proposal be approved, it could pave the way for Lebanon to join in the future the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which explicitly seeks the abolition of the death penalty.

Victims’ rights remain present

Conversely, the parliamentary Human Rights Committee attempted to take into account the rights of victims and affected parties by linking the possibility of sentence mitigation to proof that personal rights claims had been satisfied, while granting the victim’s ascendants, descendants, and spouse the right to object to mitigation requests.

This approach reflects an attempt to strike a balance between humanitarian justice and social justice, as the proposal does not appear to disregard victims’ rights, but rather seeks to reconcile the protection of the right to life with fairness toward those harmed.

In this context, life imprisonment with hard labor remains the proposed alternative punishment, on the grounds that it is sufficient to achieve deterrence without resorting to an irreversible sentence.

The risk of judicial error

MP Georges Adwan told Nida Al Watan that one of the principal arguments driving the push toward abolition is the risk of judicial error and the irreversible consequences resulting from executions once carried out. He noted that several international cases have seen death row inmates exonerated years after their convictions thanks to advances in scientific evidence methods, particularly DNA analysis.

Adwan considers that this danger becomes even more acute in judicial systems suffering from pressures on their independence or from weaknesses in investigative mechanisms, stressing that “a modern state is measured by its ability to protect fundamental rights, even under the most difficult circumstances, and by its ability to enforce the rule of law without resorting to taking human life.”

Has the deterrence argument collapsed?

Modern criminological approaches rely on studies suggesting that the death penalty has not demonstrated a decisive superiority in reducing crime rates compared to life imprisonment, thereby weakening one of the most traditional arguments used to justify its retention: deterrence.

In contrast, advocates of abolition argue that modernizing criminal legislation in line with international human rights standards is not merely a political option, but falls within Lebanon’s constitutional obligations, especially since the preamble of the Constitution affirms the state’s commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and United Nations conventions.

Lawmakers are entering today’s session amid a climate leaning toward approval of the proposal and the replacement of the death penalty with life imprisonment accompanied by hard labor, while maintaining safeguards linked to the rights of victims and their families.

Should the proposal later pass through the General Assembly, it would mean that Lebanon has taken an advanced step toward modernizing its criminal justice system and reaffirming its commitment to humanitarian and constitutional values, without compromising the requirements of preserving public security or the rights of those affected.