UAE Toughens Punishment for Murder Cases After Victim’s Family Forgives Offender

The United Arab Emirates has introduced tougher prison sentences for people convicted of murder in cases where the victim’s legal heirs decide to waive their right to qisas, or retributive justice. Under the revised legislation, offenders will now face imprisonment ranging from 15 to 20 years, marking a significant increase in the minimum and maximum terms previously prescribed by law.

The changes were announced on Thursday, October 8, through amendments to the UAE’s Crimes and Penalties Law. The revised provision establishes a longer period of incarceration for offenders whose cases fall under the legal framework governing the waiver of qisas by the victim’s heirs.

Previously, individuals convicted of intentional killing in circumstances covered by the relevant provision could receive a temporary prison sentence of at least seven years. The maximum term was 15 years. Under the updated rules, the minimum sentence has increased to 15 years, while the upper limit has been extended to 20 years.

According to legal experts, the amendment reinforces the principle that forgiveness by a victim’s family does not eliminate the criminal responsibility of a person convicted of murder. Instead, the revised law provides for a substantial prison sentence even when the family chooses not to pursue retribution.

The amendment changes Clause (3) of Article 384 of the Federal Decree-Law on Crimes and Penalties. It specifies that the revised sentencing range applies when the victim’s legal heirs relinquish their right to qisas at any point during the judicial process or before the sentence is implemented.

The government has said the changes are intended to strengthen the deterrent effect of criminal law while recognising the legal rights of victims’ families. The revised framework also seeks to protect the wider community against exceptionally serious offences and reinforce the importance of safeguarding human life.

How the revised murder sentencing rules work

Dr Hasan Elhais, a legal consultant at Amal Al Rashedi Lawyers and Legal Consultants, explained that the amendment significantly increases the punishment applicable when the victim’s heirs waive their entitlement to qisas.

Under the previous version of Article 384(3), the court could impose temporary imprisonment for a period beginning at seven years in cases covered by the provision. The revised legislation raises that minimum to 15 years and sets the maximum at 20 years.

The change therefore increases the minimum possible prison term by eight years and raises the maximum by five years.

Dr Elhais explained that the underlying legal principle has not changed. A decision by the victim’s heirs to forgive the offender or surrender their right to retribution does not automatically release the convicted person from criminal liability.

Instead, the amendment increases the punishment that remains applicable after qisas has been waived. This preserves the distinction between the family’s legal entitlement to seek retribution and the state’s responsibility to enforce criminal law.

The revised sentencing framework means that forgiveness cannot be treated as a complete defence against punishment in cases governed by the amended provision. Even when the victim’s heirs decide against pursuing qisas, the offender remains subject to a prison sentence within the statutory range.

Courts will assess the circumstances of each case when deciding the appropriate term of imprisonment. The sentence must fall between 15 and 20 years, with the final decision guided by the applicable legislation, the details of the offence and relevant sentencing considerations.

The change represents a tougher approach to punishment in serious homicide cases where the family has chosen to waive retribution. It also clarifies the consequences that remain for offenders after such a waiver has been legally recognised.

Understanding the meaning of qisas under UAE law

Qisas is a concept associated with Islamic law that refers to retribution in certain criminal cases. In cases involving intentional killing, it may permit the death penalty, provided the relevant legal requirements are satisfied and a competent court issues the necessary judgment.

The concept recognises the rights of the victim or, following the victim’s death, the legally entitled heirs. Depending on the circumstances and the applicable legal framework, those heirs may have the option to seek retribution or waive their entitlement.

A waiver means that the family gives up its claim to qisas. However, the legal consequences of that decision must be distinguished from the broader criminal proceedings against the accused.

The decision to forgive does not necessarily mean that the offender is acquitted, nor does it automatically bring every aspect of the criminal case to an end. The state retains an interest in addressing serious criminal conduct, maintaining public safety and preventing similar offences.

This distinction is particularly important in murder cases because the offence affects not only the victim and their relatives but also wider societal interests in protecting life and maintaining public order.

Under the amended provision, when the legally recognised heirs waive qisas in circumstances covered by Article 384(3), the court must apply the revised sentencing framework. The offender may therefore face a lengthy prison term despite the family’s decision to forgive.

The revised law establishes a minimum term of 15 years and a maximum of 20 years for the cases covered by the provision. The court determines the appropriate sentence within those limits after considering the relevant circumstances and legal requirements.

The change strengthens the punishment associated with the waiver of qisas while maintaining the distinction between a family’s decision concerning retribution and the state’s responsibility to impose an appropriate criminal penalty.

Does family forgiveness automatically rule out the death penalty?

The amendment has also drawn attention to the question of whether an offender can still face capital punishment after the victim’s family has agreed to forgive them.

Dr Hasan Elhais explained that a legally valid waiver removes the heirs’ claim to qisas. However, the consequences of such a waiver depend on the legal basis of the punishment involved and the circumstances of the case.

A waiver of qisas should not be interpreted as automatically eliminating the possibility of the death penalty in every situation. Where a separate offence carries its own death penalty under the applicable law, the family’s decision regarding qisas does not, by itself, extinguish criminal liability for that distinct offence.

This distinction is important because different legal provisions may apply depending on the nature of the criminal conduct and the charges involved.

The right to waive qisas relates specifically to the entitlement to retribution under the relevant legal framework. It does not necessarily determine the outcome of every other criminal charge that may arise from the same incident.

The court must therefore consider the applicable provisions and the legal effect of the waiver before determining the consequences for the accused.

Dr Elhais also noted that courts retain a role in deciding the appropriate prison sentence under the amended provision. The final punishment must comply with the statutory range and the legal requirements governing the particular case.

The broader principle is that the victim’s heirs may exercise their recognised rights concerning retribution, but the offender’s obligations under criminal law do not automatically disappear.

Consequently, the revised rules preserve the legal significance of forgiveness while ensuring that serious criminal conduct continues to attract substantial punishment.

Why the UAE has increased the prison terms

The revised sentencing range reflects the government’s stated objective of making criminal penalties more effective in deterring extremely serious offences.

By increasing the minimum prison term from seven years to 15 years, the legislation establishes a substantially longer period of incarceration for offenders in cases covered by the provision. Raising the maximum from 15 years to 20 years also gives the court a higher upper limit when determining punishment.

The government has described the amendment as a measure intended to balance two considerations: the rights of a victim’s heirs to waive qisas and the need to protect society from grave criminal acts.

The approach recognises that forgiveness by a family can have legal significance without removing the public interest in accountability. In other words, the family’s decision and the state’s responsibility to punish serious offences operate within related but distinct parts of the legal framework.

The revised provision also provides a clearer sentencing range for courts dealing with cases in which qisas has been waived. Rather than relying on the earlier range of seven to 15 years, the courts must now work within the updated limits of 15 to 20 years when the provision applies.

The new framework may also help clarify the legal consequences for people convicted of murder in these circumstances. It establishes a substantially higher minimum punishment while preserving judicial consideration of the circumstances relevant to sentencing.

The amendment forms part of the UAE’s broader legal framework governing criminal responsibility, punishment and public protection. Its stated purpose is to maintain respect for the rights recognised under the law while ensuring that exceptionally serious crimes continue to receive substantial penalties.

Other amendments to the UAE’s Crimes and Penalties Law

Alongside the changes concerning murder sentences, the UAE has introduced other amendments to its Crimes and Penalties Law, including changes relating to attempted suicide and assistance or incitement connected with suicide.

According to reporting by Khaleej Times, the revised legislation decriminalises attempted suicide, moving away from a criminal-punishment approach towards prevention, treatment and care.

The government has indicated that this change is intended to reduce the fear of legal consequences among people experiencing psychological distress. By removing criminal penalties for attempted suicide, the approach aims to make it easier for people facing a crisis to seek assistance and access appropriate support.

The change reflects a greater emphasis on addressing the circumstances surrounding a suicide attempt through care and intervention rather than treating the person solely through the criminal justice system.

The government’s stated objective is to encourage people experiencing psychological difficulties to reach out for help at an earlier stage. Reducing concerns about criminal consequences may help individuals seek professional assistance and receive the support they need.

However, the revised law also addresses conduct involving the encouragement of or assistance with suicide. Rather than treating all such situations identically, the amendments establish penalties that vary according to the circumstances and consequences.

The legislation introduces a graduated approach to punishment for inciting or assisting suicide. The applicable penalty depends on the seriousness of the conduct and whether it results in death.

Where the incitement or assistance leads to a person’s death, the reported punishment is imprisonment for a period of five to seven years.

This distinction separates the treatment of a person who attempts suicide from the legal responsibility of another individual who encourages or assists the act. While the revised framework shifts attempted suicide away from criminal punishment, conduct that contributes to another person’s death may still attract serious criminal consequences.

The changes therefore address two different aspects of the law: providing a more supportive approach for people experiencing suicidal distress and maintaining criminal accountability for individuals whose actions contribute to a fatal outcome.

A broader focus on accountability and public protection

The amendments to the UAE’s Crimes and Penalties Law address several aspects of criminal responsibility, from punishment for murder to the treatment of attempted suicide and the consequences of assisting or encouraging suicide.

In murder cases involving a waiver of qisas, the principal change is the increase in the statutory prison term. Offenders covered by the amended provision will face imprisonment ranging from 15 to 20 years, compared with the previous range of seven to 15 years.

The revised rules also make clear that a victim’s family can waive its right to retribution without automatically ending the offender’s criminal responsibility. The legal system continues to recognise the importance of public safety and the need to respond appropriately to serious offences.

At the same time, the changes concerning attempted suicide indicate a different approach to people experiencing psychological crises. The focus shifts towards prevention, treatment and access to support, while penalties remain applicable to specified forms of incitement or assistance that lead to serious consequences.

Together, the amendments illustrate how different types of conduct are addressed through distinct legal responses. Serious crimes such as murder remain subject to substantial punishment, even when the victim’s heirs forgive the offender, while attempted suicide is treated through a framework that emphasises care rather than criminalisation.

For the courts, the revised provisions establish the legal boundaries within which relevant cases must be assessed. For the public, they clarify that the waiver of qisas has specific legal consequences but does not necessarily eliminate the state’s authority to impose punishment.

The new murder sentencing range is therefore a significant change for cases covered by Article 384(3). By increasing the minimum prison term to 15 years and the maximum to 20 years, the UAE has strengthened the penalties that remain in place when the victim’s legally entitled heirs choose to waive retribution.

The final sentence in an individual case will depend on the applicable law, the legal effect of any waiver and the circumstances considered by the court. The amendment establishes the revised framework within which those decisions must be made, while preserving the distinction between the rights of the victim’s family and the wider responsibility to uphold criminal law and protect society.