Limiting the Death Penalty for Drug-Related Crimes

After years of debate over the death penalty, the Guardian Council approved the addition of a clause to the Anti-Drug Law, which limits and conditions the death penalty for those convicted of drug-related crimes. This law will come into effect on Tuesday, November 14. According to this law, convicts whose sentences are based on the previous law of death or life imprisonment can request a revision of their sentence. Iran has the second highest execution rate in the world after China, with most executions due to drug-related offenses. Asma Jahangir, the UN Special Rapporteur, noted in her recent report that some developments may lead to positive changes in the human rights situation, including reforms to drug trafficking laws. However, Jahangir reported that 435 people were executed in Iran last year. This week's program will discuss the limitation of the death penalty for drug offenders, featuring two experts: Gholamhossein Raeesi, a lawyer residing in Canada, and Saeed Piyvandi, a sociologist and university professor living in France. Mr. Raeesi, let's start with you. Can you point out what specific aspects this law addresses regarding the limitation of the death penalty? The most important part of this law is to create a kind of limitation on the execution of the death penalty or its application concerning drug-related crimes, including possession and trafficking, which has been the most severe punishment since the first Anti-Drug Law was passed after the revolution in 1989, with various amendments in subsequent years. A large number of people have been executed over the years, and drug offenders constitute a significant portion of Iran's prison population. The enforcement of the death penalty and the strict measures based on the minimum amount of drugs transported by traffickers or carriers have caused many families to lose their breadwinners. This law has indeed created limitations that change the application of the death penalty for those convicted of drug-related crimes. Mr. Raeesi, could you explain what a discretionary death penalty is and what crimes fall under this category? The Islamic Penal Code of Iran has been shaped based on Islamic laws. Discretionary crimes are those for which the minimum or maximum punishment is less than the prescribed limits, meaning if the most serious crime has a penalty of death, such as moharebeh (waging war against God), it must be less than that. In legal terminology, a discretionary crime is one where the determination of punishment is at the discretion of the Iranian legislator, and the legislator or judge considers a minimum and maximum for it, allowing for the possibility of sentence reduction. In contrast, there are fixed crimes where changes in their minimum and maximum punishments are not allowed, and the judge must strictly adhere to the law. The new Anti-Drug Law has made a clear change; previously, we had discretionary death penalties that were incorrectly included in legal terminology. However, if we wanted to adhere to Islamic regulations, it should have been less than the limit, and in reality, we had the right to execute. Nevertheless, executions were carried out. Now the law specifies that those deemed deserving of execution under the new law are considered 'mofsid fil-arz' (corrupt on earth) and thus deserving of the death penalty. With the changes made to the law, conditions have been established, stating that from the time this law is enacted, individuals' criminal behavior will determine their death penalty, and changes have been made in this area. For instance, the amount for carrying and possessing three grams of heroin or, if it is the first time, 100 grams of heroin, previously warranted the death penalty. This amount has now been changed to two kilograms, or armed transport or the use of children in drug trafficking has been altered. The death penalty has not been abolished but has been limited. Therefore, we will likely see a significant reduction in the number of death penalties and their execution, which has been the highest since the law was enacted in 1989. Mr. Piyvandi, as Mr. Raeesi mentioned, there has been a discussion about reducing the death penalty for drug offenders. In 2015, members of parliament also submitted a proposal regarding the death penalty for the Anti-Drug Law to the presiding board, but it was left unaddressed due to the end of the ninth parliament. Why do you think the Guardian Council has made this amendment now? Could there have been social changes in society that compelled them to amend this law? Can this be linked to social changes? Overall, I believe the return to this law and the existing laws in this area largely relates to the real effectiveness of these laws, the goals they pursued, as well as international experiences and pressures, and the image Iran projects internationally with such penalties. Therefore, laws in Iran are not formed in a social vacuum; they are not enacted and then changed without context. Regarding the specific issue of the death penalty, I think the discussion around it has existed for a long time. Especially concerning the effectiveness of this law, if you recall, in the early days of the revolution, figures like Khalqali believed that with mass executions, drug-related issues in Iran would be resolved quickly, and we would witness the eradication of such crimes. However, in practice, as the number of executions increased and the severity of actions intensified, drug trafficking and related offenses did not decrease, indicating that the penalties we impose do not have a deterrent effect and lack any religious justification. For example, there is a religious justification for qisas (retribution), which states that we cannot compromise due to its presence in early Islamic texts. However, for drug-related issues, which are entirely new in human societies, this should be reconsidered, and I believe it is a positive step and a move towards changing the perception of our society and public opinion, as well as officials and formal institutions, that the severity of punishment and execution is not a solution to social problems. I think the Guardian Council, which is the most conservative circle within formal institutions, is somewhat influenced by these conditions and is also trying to maintain the weight of executions in Iranian laws, as these penalties, whether for executions or other matters, reflect the authority of the regime. At times, there was a discussion about completely abolishing the death penalty for drug offenses to reduce the number of executions. Therefore, I think it is from this perspective that sometimes the Guardian Council or others believe that completely abandoning these regulations or creating an image or suspicion in society that the most severe offenses do not carry the death penalty could lead them to consider such expediencies when approving laws or criticizing laws. Mr. Raeesi, there is a discussion about convicts who were sentenced to death before this law was amended. It has been stated that if they were sentenced to life imprisonment or death, their families or they themselves can request a review. Yahya Kamali Pour, a member of the Legal and Judicial Commission of the Parliament, also told the House of the People news agency that if this plan is implemented, at least 4,000 death row inmates will be saved because they were sentenced to death for drug-related crimes. How do you interpret the release of these 4,000 individuals from prison? Please elaborate on the prisoners who were previously sentenced to death. We have faced a strange phenomenon regarding the Anti-Drug Law initially, and that is that the Expediency Discernment Council has intervened each time this law was approved and amended. Legislation in this area has not occurred. I would like to add to Mr. Piyvandi's remarks that legislation has not been based on societal needs but rather on certain expediencies and behaviors, and it does not even align with religious standards, nor does it currently, although the regulations established by the law have been written as 'mofsid fil-arz'. From another perspective, given the severity of the previous law's enforcement, there were many individuals in prisons, and the number may exceed the 4,000 mentioned, who have been under death sentences for many years. The Islamic Republic wanted to execute all of them but faced increasing international pressure, which could have negative impacts within society. Not due to the consideration of their situation, but to avoid raising their execution statistics, they did not carry out executions and kept some under death sentences for many years, while others were executed. For those whose death sentences have not been executed and according to this law or a broader law, whenever a more suitable law is passed that does not consider the convict's actions a crime or prescribes a lighter penalty, the court can apply leniency in the convict's sentence or even release them if they deserve to be freed from prison or punishment. From this perspective, it is a fundamental right and one of the essential principles in criminal law that the new law, when more favorable to the convict, should be enforced. The assumption here is that the legislator considers the needs of society and legislates accordingly, and societal needs require that today these individuals should not be punished or executed. Thus, this general principle enters a criminal policy and ultimately reflects in the execution of criminal policies because this principle exists in criminal law, and it is an inalienable right of all convicts sentenced under the previous or current Anti-Drug Law to life imprisonment or death. This law and the provisions it has established are more favorable to them, and their cases align with the conditions of this law. In this case, all those whose death sentences have not been executed and fall under this law, that is, the amendment of Article 45 of the Anti-Drug Law recently passed and is now our topic of discussion, all of them should have their death sentences reduced to thirty years in prison or other more suitable conditions if they meet those conditions. The number of prisoners who have been excessively under death sentences is unfortunately high in some prisons; for example, the number of 4,000 may exist in Adelabad prison in Mashhad. There are no official statistics, and families or the convicts themselves can request without needing any action. With the implementation of this law, they can benefit from this reduction. Just one point, Mr. Raeesi, you mentioned the term 'mofsid fil-arz'. Who qualifies as 'mofsid fil-arz' and what characteristics do they have? The term 'mofsid fil-arz' and 'moharebeh' are among the terms that became common after the 1979 revolution in Iran. It has a very broad definition and is not clear; anyone under any conditions can be considered 'mofsid fil-arz'. In jurisprudential texts, it refers to someone whose actions lead to the spread of corruption in society and cause people to face a significant problem. Regarding drug offenses, there is a quote from Ayatollah Khomeini stating that those engaged in drug distribution and causing harm to youth are 'mofsid fil-arz'. This term is very broad and is repeated in some other laws without a clear definition being provided. However, this law states that in the case of 'mofsid fil-arz', it has clarified examples, such as someone who uses children for labor, someone who transports drugs armed, or someone who transports a large quantity of drugs or leads drug offenses, is subject to the death penalty. Unfortunately, this law, like previous drug laws, remains silent on considering those who merely transport drugs as 'mofsid fil-arz'. Those who are deceived and engage in transportation are not clearly defined.