Morality and the Death Penalty: Saudi Arabia
In 2025, Saudi Arabia recorded the largest amount of executions in its history, 347, for the second consecutive year. With sharia law deeply entrenched in the nation, serving as the exclusive foundation of its legal system, it opens the conversation relating to morality and the death penalty. Particularly, how Saudi Arabia’s application of Sharia Law departs at times from moral and religious consistency.
To briefly contextualize, all crimes in Saudi Arabia fall under three major categories in Islamic law. Hudud refers to crimes with mandatory , fixed punishments , which may include the death penalty, such as adultery. Qisas are retributive punishments, particularly for intentional murder, where the victim’s family could ask for equivalent punishment in execution or financial compensation or a full pardon. Lastly, Ta’zir includes all crimes that have no fixed punishment defined in Islamic law, such as bribery. In such instances, judges are given much discretionary power to determine punishment which may induce imprisonment or execution.
Last year, around two-thirds of those executed were convicted of non-lethal drug related offences, according to Reprieve, as the nation tackles the “war on drugs”. More than half of these convictions were for foreign nationals as reported by the BBC. For many of these foreign nationals, they face further difficulty as they may not have access to a legal representative or effective interpretation, stated by amnesty international. Such crimes generally fall under the Ta’zir framework, allowing judges to dictate the appropriate punishment. As Beckerle, amnesty international’s deputy regional director for the middle east and North Africa, states “We are witnessing a truly horrifying trend, with foreign nationals being put to death at a startling rate for crimes that should never carry the death penalty.” However, Saudi Arabia has implemented new policy changes surrounding alcohol, one of the most abused substances that is categorically restricted in Islam, that perhaps contradicts their stance on drug related offences. Notably, a liquor store previously catering diplomats and other such officials has now introduced a “premium residency” permit, as reported by the New York Times. This “premium residency” is dependent on income, essentially excusing a highly select few to openly flout the entrenched practices of the nation. Comparably, those lower in status are publicly punished and may even be executed for the same indulgences, accentuating a clear imbalance of treatment and undermining claims of moral and religious consistency.
Alongside this, those awaiting trial have experienced horrific treatment. Such is evidenced in the case of two Shia activists convicted of crimes related to a protest they were a part of, that they committed as teenagers. Amnesty international reported that they were denied counsel and had been allegedly tortured to confess their guilt, visibly defying a multitude of human rights and international laws. The UN convention on the rights of the child, strictly prohibited the use of the death penalty for offences committed by those under 18. As a party to this convention, Saudi Arabia’s alleged treatment of the activists raises concerns over the extent of its implementation in the state.
To conclude, the ever-rising executions occurring in Saudi Arabia alongside the deplorable human rights violations associated with them stir much concern. For a system built on fulfilling the guidance of sharia law, the legal authorities seemingly exploit the ambiguity in Ta’zir cases , like drug related offences, leading to arbitrary and inconsistent outcomes illustrated in the growing execution rate.
Written by Alisha Riaz