Mercy Triumphs Over Justice

A judge is bound to apply the legal rule to the case before them once its mandatory conditions are met, the criminal act is proven in a fair trial with all legal guarantees, and the evidence is consistent and corroborated. Consequently, the judge (court) shall impose the prescribed penalty without considering the defendant’s personal circumstances unless such circumstances fall within the statutory grounds for exoneration or mitigation or under provisions allowing for the suspension of the sentence.

The criminal justice system, comprising substantive and procedural criminal laws, investigative and prosecution bodies, courts and other relevant institutions, does not permit the judge (court) to take initiatives to balance the justice ruled thereby within the framework of the legal provisions applied to the facts of the case and what (mercy) requires. There is no constant and inevitable correlation between justice, particularly functional (legal) justice, and “mercy” as a supreme human value.

However, “mercy” is not subject to legal regulation that defines its meaning, scope, cases of application or instances where it is withheld, so that it can be applied and adjudicated by the judge (court). Mercy is a human emotion that is experienced when deficiency or need is observed, prompting an individual to alleviate that deficiency or fulfill that need. For instance, when an orphan is seen shivering from the cold due to a lack of clothing, or when a poor person is seen suffering from hunger because they lack food, or when an oppressed individual is seen writhing under the lashes of a tyrant with no supporter or defender, feelings of mercy are stirred, and action is taken to change that reality, this is mercy.

Since human beings, regardless of where, when, or how they exist, are always in need of mercy, even in matters of justice, the principle of “Mercy Triumphs Over Justice” was established by legal philosophers long ago.

This principle neither calls for nor establishes a basis for violating or surpassing justice; rather, it advocates for the infusion of mercy into justice, meaning that justice should be rendered with compassion, in other words, compassionate justice. Mercy is considered an attribute that accompanies justice and follows it. If the prescribed penalty is imposed by the court, this constitutes justice. However, if the rightful party chooses to forgo their right, as in the case of retribution (qisas), such a waiver is regarded as mercy. Various manifestations of mercy exist, such as when an appeal is made by the court to the ruler to grant clemency to a defendant for a particular reason, or when the rightful parties are urged to relinquish their claims out of compassion and leniency toward the convicted individual.

Mercy may also be exercised by the judge independently when it is felt that the execution of the judgment would result in the death or destruction of the convicted person or the deterioration of their physical, psychological, or mental health, even though the imposed penalty does not exceed imprisonment for a specified duration.