BEIRUT: Whether capital punishment in Lebanon should be abolished or not was the topic of debate during a dialogue session entitled “Capital Punishment: A Reaction to Social Failure or a Righteous Kill?” held in Beirut Monday evening.
The session, organized by Nahwa al-Muwatiniya – a non-governmental organization interested in altering the existing political culture through informed activism and engagement – took place at Pub 101 in the Sanayeh neighborhood of the Lebanese capital.
Lawyers Nizar Saghieh and Chawki Chreim were the main speakers of the discussion.
“[Capital punishment] is an exceptional punishment for an exceptional crime. It is still necessary to include capital punishment in the law but to restrict applying it to extremely dangerous crimes,” Chreim said.
The lawyer argued that when late President Elias Hrawi had applied capital punishment, the number of crimes during his nine-year tenure (1990-98) had fallen by more than a half.
Chreim said 14 death sentences had been executed since the end of Lebanon’s 1975-90 Civil War.
The two lawyers estimated that around 60 individuals were currently facing death sentences in Lebanon.
Chreim highlighted the need to reform the penal system to enhance the rehabilitation of prisoners, an essential condition for abolishing capital punishment, maintaining that once a criminal entered prison, his criminal attitude worsened. “A juvenile who enters prison on charges of theft acquires expertise in killing and drugs from other inmates,” he said.
He said capital punishment should not be rooted out in a state that still lacked the standards of a state of law.
“The abolishment [of capital punishment] shall take place gradually, first with regard to less-dangerous crimes until it is later completely abrogated when the society becomes mature enough to accept and understand the step,” said Chreim.
Meanwhile, Saghieh said it was because Lebanon lacked the standards of a state of law that he rejected the application of capital punishment.
“If we are in a state without law, this means that legal pursuits are improper,” he said, adding that he agreed with Chreim on the need to reform the penal system.
Saghieh described Hrawi’s rule of “the killer should be killed,” issued in 1994, as “one of the silliest laws.”
“We were in a post-war period and all the warlords who had committed massacres were in power, issued death sentences and set up gallows,” he said.
“It is the greatest irony in Lebanon: instead of the society punishing itself [for Civil War crimes], it chose to punish some scapegoats. We went out of the Civil War without being aware of human dignity,” he added.
Saghieh said the general amnesty that was issued in Lebanon, in the aftermath of the Civil War, exempted murderers from all crimes except those targeting political leaders, contrary to international laws stipulating that individuals committing crimes against human dignity – like massacres – should not go unpunished.
Saghieh said the general amnesty that was issued in Lebanon, in the aftermath of the Civil War, exempted murderers from all crimes except those targeting political leaders, contrary to international laws stipulating that individuals committing crimes against human dignity – like massacres – should not go unpunished.
“So the value [in Lebanon] is for the political leader rather than for human dignity,” said Lawyer Saghieh.
According to Saghieh, the reason behind issuing death sentences during Hrawi’s mandate had been merely political.
“They wanted to say that we reclaimed the stature of the state by setting up gallows. This is a political decision that has nothing to do with justice,” he said, adding that courts had avoided dealing with questions relating to psychological and social factors that might contribute to people committing crimes.
Saghieh said the 1994 law did not allow any discussion in the courts over the reasons for crimes. “Why does human nature drive a person to kill in this way? Does he bear absolute or relative responsibility?”
Saghieh said that political reasons aiming at restoring part of the state’s legitimacy had also been behind the setting up of gallows in 2000, when the state, under the rule of former President Emile Lahoud, failed to fulfill its reform promises, and in 2004, when there was a sharp political division.
He paid tribute to former Prime Minister Salim al-Hoss for thwarting the attempt in 2000 when he refused to sign on death sentences.
He also revealed that the new penal law currently in the works allowed for the application of capital punishment in 18 cases.
Concerning individuals involved in spying for Israel, Chreim said the penal code stipulated that the death penalty was demanded for members carrying arms within the ranks of the enemy or facilitating its victory, but those assisting the enemy in killing were sentenced to lifetime of hard labor.
The parliamentary minority, mainly Hizbullah, has called for the death sentence for all collaborators with Israel.
Saghieh argued that military courts in which alleged spies were tried did not allow defense attorneys to carry out their task properly.
Makram Kamel, a journalist who attended the discussion, said he supported the death sentence for those involved in crimes against humanity but did not favor it for people who committed small crimes.
Chreim responded by saying that laws in Lebanon were like insect nets “in which the small [bodies] are trapped and big ones manage to escape.”
“The question raised today is not whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not, but it is whether we need scapegoats from time to time for the state to restore its legitimacy,” said Saghieh.
No comments:
Post a Comment