Lebanon abolishes death penalty, making regional history as amnesty law sparks debate

The historic step is being hailed as a major victory for human dignity and human rights, while another piece of legislation about general amnesty has sparked intense debate.

This month Lebanon became the first country in the Middle East to abolish the death penalty, a historic step that drew widespread international praise and was hailed as a major victory for human dignity and human rights.

Just days later, another landmark measure known as the general amnesty law proved far more controversial. The legislation has sparked intense debate, particularly within Lebanese Christian circles, amid concerns over public security, accountability, and the rights of victims.

A regional first

Lebanon had not carried out an execution since 2004, but its courts continued to issue death sentences, including one as recently as Aug. 10. According to Amnesty International, at least 85 people remained on death row as of January.

Capital punishment in Lebanon has been generally reserved for serious crimes, including murder, terrorism, and espionage.

The new law sets Lebanon apart in a region where executions remain widespread. Amnesty International recorded more than 2,000 executions in Iran and over 350 in Saudi Arabia last year. In June, Jordan hanged six men convicted of killing members of the security forces, ending a nine-year moratorium. Earlier this year, Israel’s parliament also passed a law permitting the execution of Palestinians convicted of fatal attacks.

Lebanon had repeatedly supported calls for a moratorium on capital punishment at the U.N., including a 2024 resolution on the issue. Justice Minister Adel Nassar described its abolition as a “historic” step.

General amnesty provokes concern among Christians

While the decision to end capital punishment has attracted widespread praise, Parliament’s adoption of a general amnesty law provoked a markedly different response, generating intense controversy — particularly within Christian circles.

The law covers crimes committed before March 1, 2026, and excludes several serious offenses from a full pardon — notably terrorism, premeditated murder, treason, espionage, corruption, banking crimes, money laundering, and terrorist financing. Also excluded are rape, human trafficking, domestic violence, the sexual abuse of minors, torture, enforced disappearance, and certain drug, theft, and environmental crimes.

Those convicted of excluded offenses would nevertheless benefit from reduced sentences: Life imprisonment with hard labor would be commuted to 17 years — equivalent to approximately 12 years and nine months of actual imprisonment under Lebanon’s system — while other sentences would be reduced by a third.

The law has generated widespread controversy, particularly within Christian circles, where concerns focus on its potential security consequences. Critics warn that releasing large numbers of prisoners or reducing their sentences, in the absence of effective rehabilitation and reintegration programs, could leave some vulnerable to returning to crime or being recruited by armed political parties, extremist groups, and drug-trafficking networks. These fears are compounded by weak state institutions and an economy unable to provide sufficient employment opportunities.

Opponents argue that the legislation fails to address the underlying problems: overcrowded prisons, prolonged pretrial detention, slow trials, and a dysfunctional judicial system. The appropriate response, according to critics, would be to accelerate judicial proceedings so that the innocent are released and the guilty held accountable rather than collectively dismissing prosecutions and sentences.

The law has also raised a fundamental question about victims’ rights.

“Instead of accelerating trials and deciding cases in order to acquit the innocent and convict the guilty, the supposed experts resort to the easiest solution: a general amnesty,” Father Dany Dargham wrote on social media. “The concerns of Christian parties remain reduced to winning municipal, parliamentary, and local council votes, while the cause of a free and dignified existence remains absent from their agenda.”

Moreover, in a sectarian country such as Lebanon, political decisions are rarely viewed separately from the country’s delicate communal balance, with each religious community asking what it gained from a particular agreement. Some Christians regarded the provision allowing Lebanese citizens who fled to Israel after 2000 to return — provided they had not participated in military or security activities — as their community’s principal gain from the law.

However, Member of Parliament Ziad Hawat said those who hold Israeli citizenship would be required to renounce it. His statement led many to question how many would actually return, if any.

Lebanese political activist Maryam Younes, who lives in exile in Israel, responded in a video: “You cannot include us in a law that pardons criminals, rapists, and murderers, when our crime was defending our land. We do not believe this general amnesty concerns us. Nor can anyone guarantee that, if we return to Lebanon, Hezbollah will not harm us. We will certainly not return now.”

This story was first published by ACI MENA, the Arabic-language sister service of EWTN News, and has been translated and adapted by EWTN News English.