Macron Says Executions Rise as Abolition Fight Grows

A state execution sounds distant until politics makes it feel local. One brutal crime, one angry television debate, and suddenly the old question returns: should the state kill in the name of justice?

That is why Emmanuel Macron chose a sharp warning in Paris on Tuesday, June 30. Speaking at the 9th World Congress Against the Death Penalty, the French president said the global abolition movement cannot assume history is moving only one way.

For Indian readers, this is not some European moral lecture. India still has the death penalty, though courts use it sparingly. The phrase “rarest of rare” carries weight here. But public anger after violent crimes can quickly turn punishment into politics.

Executions are rising again

Macron said executions have reached a frightening high in countries that still keep the death penalty. He cited 2,707 people executed by authorities in just 17 countries.

That number matters because it shows how concentrated state executions have become. Most countries have either abolished capital punishment or stopped using it in practice. Yet a smaller group continues to kill at scale.

The group Ensemble contre la peine de mort said China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq carried out the highest number of executions in 2024. China’s real number remains hard to verify because Beijing treats death penalty data as a state secret.

Iran stands out even more sharply. Iran Human Rights and ECPM said Iranian authorities executed at least 1,639 people in 2025. They called it the highest figure since 1989.

For ordinary people, these are not just legal statistics. They point to courts, prisons, families, appeals, and often weak safeguards. In many countries, poor defendants face the harshest end of the system.

Macron targets the fear argument

Macron’s core argument was simple: the death penalty does not make society safer. He said it has never worked as a true deterrent.

This is the point politicians often avoid during moments of public rage. After a shocking murder, people want certainty. They want the state to prove it can protect them. The death penalty offers a brutal kind of theatre.

But deterrence means something very specific. It means a punishment prevents future crimes because people fear it. Macron argued that evidence does not support that claim.

He also said capital punishment can become a weapon, not a shield. That line matters in today’s politics. In many places, governments use harsh punishment to look strong when institutions look weak.

India knows this mood well. After horrific crimes, the demand for death often rises fast. Families want justice. Citizens want safety. Politicians sense the public temperature and speak accordingly.

Yet the harder question remains. Does execution prevent the next crime, or does it only satisfy anger after the crime? That distinction is painful, but serious societies must face it.

Israel and Sahel raise alarms

Macron also pointed to new efforts that could pull more countries towards capital punishment. He mentioned Israel and the Sahel as worrying examples.

In March, Israel’s parliament adopted a bill proposing the death penalty for Palestinians accused of murder during acts described as terrorist. The proposal arrives in an already explosive political climate.

That matters because legal systems under conflict face huge pressure. When grief, war and national security dominate public life, courts can become arenas of revenge. Justice then risks becoming part of the conflict itself.

In the Sahel, Burkina Faso offers another warning sign. Its military-led government announced in December that it would restore the death penalty in the penal code.

The Sahel has faced years of armed violence, coups and institutional breakdown. Governments there often frame tougher laws as answers to insecurity. Citizens who live with fear may accept almost anything that promises order.

This is where India should pay attention. Security crises create shortcuts. A state under pressure may sell severity as strength. But when courts, policing and prisons remain weak, the harshest punishment can deepen injustice.

Abolition is not permanent

Macron praised Zambia and Zimbabwe for abolishing the death penalty. He also welcomed reforms in countries that have reduced its use since the last major global abolition gathering in Berlin in 2022.

He said no people are permanently tied to capital punishment. That is a useful reminder. Laws change when politics, courts and public opinion shift together.

Today, 114 states have definitively abandoned the death penalty. That is a large moral and legal movement. But Macron warned that abolition is never fully secure.

France itself sees the debate return after shocking crimes. The murders of young Lyhanna and Louis brought fresh anger into public discussion. That pattern is familiar everywhere.

The French ambassador for human rights, Isabelle Lonvis-Rome, said several countries show a resurgence of executions. She linked this to political repression, social control and responses to security crises.

That is the deeper global story. The death penalty is not only about crime. It is also about state power. It tells us how far governments will go when fear becomes a political resource.

Why India should care

India sits in a careful middle position. It has not abolished the death penalty. But the Supreme Court has limited it to the rarest cases.

That balance is always under stress. High-profile crimes can push public mood towards harsher punishment. Terror cases can create another kind of pressure. Election politics can add heat.

For young Indians, especially those who watch global politics closely, this debate is also about the kind of state they want. A strong state must punish crime. But it must also prove guilt fairly, protect due process and avoid irreversible mistakes.

A death sentence allows no correction after a wrongful conviction. That is the hardest fact in the debate. Every justice system makes errors. Poor investigation, weak legal aid and forced confessions can turn those errors fatal.

This does not mean victims’ pain should be softened in polite language. Families who lose children or loved ones to brutal violence deserve justice that moves quickly and seriously. But speed and severity are not the same thing.

The real test for India is not whether it can shout louder after every horrific crime. The test is whether it can build courts, policing and victim support that deliver justice without surrendering to rage. The world is showing us that the death penalty returns whenever fear gets organised. A democracy must be strong enough to resist that temptation.