On death penalty

The execution of 11 convicted criminals last week took many by surprise since Jordan had frozen the application of the death penalty some eight years ago.

The execution caused also an uproar among EU countries, which are at the vanguard of nations opposed to capital punishment as being cruel and inhuman.

Nations that are against this form of punishment say it fails to act as a deterrent.

I believe Jordan will not carry out any additional executions.

Having responded positively to the public’s demand to reintroduce this extreme punishment after the rise in the rates of crime in the country in recent years, and, more importantly, out of deference to the Jordanian culture that endorses this form of punishment, the government can now revert to its long stance against execution.

In any case, Jordan has stopped short of abolishing the death punishment because of religious and traditions constraints.

Islam endorses death penalty and no amount of interpretation can get around this position.

It must also be mentioned that if the government does nor apply the death penalty against criminals that commit heinous crimes, close relatives of the victims may.

That said , the narrative of the death penalty is a bit tortuous.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which opened the door for the abolition of this punishment, stipulates in paragraph 2 of Article 6 that “in countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes”.

Then came the interpretation by the UN Human Rights Committee that monitors observance of that international treaty, to the effect that while there is no specific article in the covenant that prohibits the death penalty outright, the application of this penalty contravenes Article 7 of the covenant which states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment”.

The jurisprudence of that treaty body was that any form of execution entails torture, or cruel or inhuman punishment, and therefore must be struck down.

The entire international community is practically on board as far as this international human rights instrument is concerned.

However, it is still divided on the issue, with only 81 states having ratified or acceded to the Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR, which aims to abolish the death penalty.

It is noteworthy, however, that even this Optional Protocol does not prohibit the death penalty in an absolute manner.

In its third preambular paragraph, this Optional Protocol states that “Article 6 of ICCPR refers to the abolition of the death penalty in terms that strongly suggest that abolition is desirable”, an admission that the prohibition is not absolute.

Moreover, Article 1 of the Optional Protocol allows a reservation in times of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of military nature, which is practically another admission that the prohibition is not absolute.

Then came Protocol 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, aiming to “plug” the gap left open by the Optional Protocol.

However, only 44 states ratified it or acceded to it.

Against this backdrop, Jordan might opt to take the middle road for the time being.

Having applied the penalty against convicted criminals in a court of law where the minimum rules for the administration of criminal justice have been met, it would probably go back to suspending the application of death penalty for the time being, unless the public opinion demands its application once again, especially if a horrible crime is committed.