u/Standard_Ad7704

On May 23rd, 1926, under the French mandate, the constitution was drafted with input from leading Lebanese figures and influenced by the French Third Republic. It established key principles of liberty, equality, and religious freedom, while also creating a political system that distributed representation and power based on religious affiliation.

The Lebanese Constitution was progressive for its time; it is a shame the country has not lived up to its tenets.

Coinciding with the start of the Parliamentary Administration and Justice Committee's session to study the proposed law to abolish the death penalty in Lebanon, this file returns to the forefront of political debate. In this context, French writer and journalist Michel Taube, who is also the managing editor of the Opinion Internationale website and the founder of the organization Ensemble contre la peine de mort (Together Against the Death Penalty), offers an in-depth analysis of this debate in a press interview. In it, he considered that abolishing this penalty could constitute a historical turning point in the region and a precedent whose repercussions may extend to other countries.

Below is the text of the interview with Taube:

Lebanon is discussing a proposed law aimed at abolishing the death penalty. What do you think of this debate returning today in a Middle Eastern country characterized by significant security and political tensions?

Abolishing the death penalty in Lebanon would be an event of paramount importance and a real turning point in the history of the path to abolishing the death penalty. Imagine: in the Arab and Islamic world, there is no country, and I repeat, no country, that has abolished the death penalty. Turkey, the former Ottoman state, did so in 2004 for tactical reasons rather than out of conviction, in hopes of joining the European Union. Lebanon's choice would set a precedent in the region and give ideas to other countries.

Incidentally, I express my regret that Israel is moving in the opposite direction, having reinstated the death penalty for quasi-religious reasons. This is not the idea I envision for Israel.

I remember as if it were yesterday, the Lebanese coalition in the early 2000s, which almost succeeded in abolishing the death penalty. It was very close. I visited Lebanon at the invitation of this coalition and the prestigious Saint Joseph University (USJ) in Beirut. Let us salute all these activists who never gave up.

Abolishing the death penalty in Lebanon would ultimately be a political victory for the Lebanese democratic forces, and a major defeat for Hezbollah, which has always, like its allies in Tehran, been a supporter of the death penalty.

However, one must be cautious because the legislative process in Lebanon is complex. But the mere return of the idea to the political debate is a victory in itself.

It is clear that Lebanon, since the arrival of General Joseph Aoun to power, whose courage and vision must be commended, is undergoing a real revolution.

Supporters of retaining the death penalty often argue that it is a deterrent. After years of struggle, does this argument still hold?

The threat of execution has never deterred a criminal from committing a crime. It must be emphasized: the death penalty is never a deterrent! Whoever says otherwise is lying and inciting hate.

The draft law in Lebanon stipulates replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment with hard labor, with guarantees for the victims' families. Do you consider this a balanced approach?

I fully support it, and we used to disagree on this with Robert Badinter, on the necessity of replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment, or with permanent detention sentences for the most dangerous criminals and repeat offenders, especially in sexual crimes. Innocents cannot be sacrificed in the name of a general principle!

But be aware that the families of victims killed by criminals rarely demand revenge or execution, sometimes for religious reasons, and because they realize that executing the criminal will not bring their loved ones back.

In many countries, a large segment of the population still supports the death penalty. How can society be convinced that abolishing it does not mean abandoning justice or protecting victims?

Through continuous explanation of the reasons I mentioned here, and protecting the victims without sliding into vengeful justice.

Lebanon has not carried out any executions since 2004. Is this proof that a country can function without this penalty despite it remaining in the law?

De facto abolition is the path adopted by the United Nations to push countries that do not want legal abolition to at least stop executions. But does it make sense to keep people on death row for decades without carrying out the sentence? It is better to commute the sentence.

Do you consider the abolition of the death penalty a mark of democracy and civilization for nations?

Yes. The death penalty is revenge elevated to the level of an institution. And revenge only produces violence. Its origin was "an eye for an eye," which was considered progress at the time because it limited retaliation in kind.

The last time Parliament passed a General Amnesty law was in 2005. So it's more than 21 years. Why this newfound urgency today?