The death penalty usually sparks legal and human rights controversies between two main trends: the first supports its retention, considering it a means to achieve general deterrence, protect society from the gravest crimes, and establish justice for crime victims and their families, especially in cases of premeditated murder and terrorist crimes resulting in loss of life. The second trend calls for its abolition, based on the sanctity of the right to life, doubts regarding its deterrent effect, and the possibility of achieving the purposes of the punishment through other penal alternatives.
This divergence in positions has been reflected at the international level. Article 6 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights did not absolutely prohibit the death penalty, but rather permitted countries that have not abolished it to apply it to the most serious crimes, in accordance with specific judicial controls and guarantees. Moving towards abolition, the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant, adopted in 1989, aimed to abolish this penalty—a protocol which Jordan has not joined thus far. Consequently, retaining the death penalty does not in itself constitute a violation of the Kingdom's international obligations.
In light of this international legal framework, the Jordanian legislator still maintains the death penalty for a number of crimes stipulated in the prevailing penal legislation. Article 328 of the Penal Code imposed this penalty in aggravated cases of intentional homicide, including premeditated murder, murder committed in preparation for a felony or to facilitate its execution, and murder committed against an ascendant. The death penalty has also been prescribed for certain crimes affecting internal and external state security and terrorist crimes, reflecting the keenness of the Jordanian legislator to protect the right to life and safeguard the security of the state and society.
Alongside this legislative regulation, the Jordanian Constitution has surrounded the execution of the death penalty with a special guarantee. Article 39 stipulates that no death sentence shall be executed except after ratification by the King, and that the Council of Ministers must submit any such sentence to His Majesty accompanied by a statement of its opinion thereon. This provision reflects the constitutional legislator's keenness to subject the execution of the penalty to a special constitutional procedure, given its gravity and the impossibility of reversing its effects after execution, while leaving the determination of the crimes that warrant it to the ordinary legislator.
Returning to the Lebanese experience, the abolition of the death penalty does not necessarily mean that Jordan must follow the same approach, especially since the Lebanese legislator replaced it with aggravated life hard labor for crimes committed after the entry into force of the law, and life hard labor for crimes committed prior to it. Furthermore, this legislative shift came after the execution of the penalty had been suspended since 2004, and in light of special legal and human rights considerations, reflecting the differing trends governing criminal policy from one state to another.
From this standpoint, the death penalty remains one of the most controversial issues in comparative criminal law due to the overlapping human rights and security considerations associated with it. While some countries have chosen to abolish it, others—including Jordan—still maintain it to confront specific crimes, proceeding from their responsibility to protect society and achieve justice. In all cases, the primary standard lies in respecting the constitutional and judicial guarantees that ensure the integrity of judgments and the fairness of their execution, while taking into account relevant international obligations.
* Professor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Jordan
