Human societies have been established since the beginning of history based on a set of rules and laws created by the members of that society. One of these laws that has existed in all societies and throughout different eras, from primitive humans to the present, is the law of retribution, which aims to punish and reduce crime. Retribution is one of the oldest laws that has remained from ancient human civilizations. This law, also known as the law of retaliation, unfortunately still exists in the penal codes of some countries and is enforced.

The law of retribution, in addition to the laws of Moses, also existed in the Code of Hammurabi and Roman legal systems, and was accepted by Islamic law. Now, retribution is officially accepted as a principle in some Islamic countries, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia, in their criminal laws, and their judicial systems enforce it. Governments that implement retribution consider it a divine decree and a means of seeking justice for the oppressed, and see it as a fundamental principle that can have preventive and deterrent effects on crime and wrongdoing. On the other hand, there are those who see retribution as a cruel form of punishment that has been passed down since ancient times and has no place in today’s world and modern judicial system.

In this writing, we attempt to examine the psychological and moral burden that the death penalty imposes on both the victim’s and perpetrator’s families, by looking at one of the recent cases (the case of a juvenile offender named Arman Abdolali, whose sentence was recently carried out in Rajai Shahr prison). Arman Abdolali, who was convicted of murdering a girl named Ghazaleh Shakoor in 2013 at the age of 17, was sentenced to death and his sentence was carried out on the evening of Thursday, December 3rd in Rajai Shahr prison. During his trial, Arman Abdolali, who was 17 at the time of the crime, had stated that he was tortured in solitary confinement for 85 days after his arrest in order to confess. He had been transferred to solitary confinement in Rajai Shahr prison more than six times before his execution.

In this case, apart from the discussion about the execution of children under the age of eighteen, which is a clear violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and has been accepted by Iran, the psychological and moral burden that the families of both sides bear is being discussed. Arman’s father had said in an interview with Rokna: “We, like many people, had a peaceful life that was suddenly struck by this incident. Arman made a very big mistake, but the grateful family members are very respectable and have never disrespected us in these years. They just want their rights and that gives them the power to move forward.”

In this interview, Arman’s father explains that when his son was sentenced to death, all legal procedures were followed and we had one last meeting with Arman. It is indescribable to hear that your child is a murderer. That night, Arman apologized to me and his mother and said sorry for bringing us to this point. Then the night of the execution arrived and my wife and I, who had been holding onto the prison walls for seven years, were waiting for our son’s body to be handed over to us.

It is necessary to address two main topics and two fundamental questions when entering the discussion.

A- The relationship between the concept of retribution and the production of violence in society.

It should not be forgotten that the responsible parties for punishing criminals in all countries are judicial institutions, but unfortunately in retribution, the responsibility for punishment is placed on the shoulders of ordinary citizens. This not only leads to the continuation of the cycle of violence in society, but also imposes a heavy psychological burden on both parties involved in the case. The death penalty gives the right to take the life of a human being to the heirs of the victim and the surviving family members, and in a way, it involves revenge and bloodshed for the surviving family members, ultimately resulting in the reproduction of violence. Considering that after the implementation of retribution, the life of the killer is taken by the heirs of the victim, and the act of retribution is carried out by the judicial authority with the intention of depriving the guilty person (in this case, the killer) of life and providing the conditions for its implementation, it is in a way the reproduction of violence and encourages the heirs of the victim to

The relationship between retribution and solace for the survivors.

The discussion here is actually about how to ensure the satisfaction or comfort of families. Is there a direct relationship between the death penalty and the comfort of the survivors? The reality is that we live in a world where the death penalty has been abolished in more than 140 countries, yet crimes and killings still occur in all of these countries. Do people in all of these countries really not find comfort because the murderer is not executed? I want to point out that because our society is accustomed to the ancient tradition of execution and believes that there is no other way to punish criminals, this tradition still exists in our society. However, experience has shown that in all countries where the death penalty has been abolished, this humane punishment provides long-term or eternal comfort to families and they are satisfied with it. These things have not changed the nature of humans, who are emotional beings and may have lost their loved ones in a terrible situation, but when they see that the perpetrator has been imprisoned, they feel that justice has

Defenders of the laws, who hold the victims of crime responsible for choosing between execution or non-execution of retribution, naturally resort to a range of pragmatic or theoretical arguments in defense of existing laws, which are not the subject of this writing; especially considering the wide range of mutual criticisms that have been raised against these laws from the perspective of fair trial principles and human rights rules. It would be very strange to imagine that in non-retribution or execution-based systems, there would not be a decisive response to serious crimes.

Punishment of criminal justice and execution of retribution. 

In general, the result of giving or not giving the execution of the retribution sentence to individuals with different tastes is that firstly, criminal justice turns into private revenge. Secondly, by declaring consent, dangerous criminals are practically given more security and soon return to society, and the cycle of violence is repeated in society. Thirdly, sometimes the door to trade is opened and individuals who demand multiple compensations benefit from this issue and want to trade, which is not at all beneficial for a society, and sometimes the door to injustice towards others is opened or requests made by one of the parties regarding giving consent lead to the weakening of the law and justice.

Explanation of the case of Arman Abdolalai

Ghazaleh Shakoor was a nineteen-year-old girl who left her home on December 12, 2013 and disappeared. After her family reported her missing, police investigations showed that Ghazaleh had left her home to meet her boyfriend, Arman Abdolali, and had gone missing afterwards. In initial interrogations, Abdolali confessed that Ghazaleh had decided to end their relationship due to her plans to immigrate, which led to a confrontation between them. As a result of this confrontation, Ghazaleh was hit on the head and lost consciousness. Abdolali admitted in initial interrogations that after hitting Ghazaleh, he also hit her on the head with a metal rod several times. He then wrapped her body in a plastic bag and threw it in the trash can. However, he later retracted his confession and claimed that the blow to Ghazaleh’s head was caused by her falling down the stairs, and that he

In the year 1400, according to the lawyer Abdolali and the head of the Conflict Resolution Center, it was reported that the case had been finalized and the court’s final decision was execution, which depended on the decision of the victim’s family. During this year, Abdolali was transferred four times for execution within only three weeks. The sentence was supposed to be carried out on October 12, but it was delayed until October 15. He was then transferred again on October 25, but the execution was once again cancelled. According to Khoramshahi, one of Abdolali’s lawyers, the execution was suspended on October 25 for public reasons (all executions were halted at that time). He was transferred again on November 10 for execution on November 12, but the sentence was still not carried out.

Finally, on the morning of December 3, 2021, the execution sentence of Arman Abdolali was carried out in Rajai Shahr prison.

Conclusion 

Losing a child or a family member has serious emotional and psychological consequences for the family; therefore, in the first place, it is assumed to be a matter of blood revenge and not the execution of justice. After the execution of retribution, it seems that due to the elimination of the criminal, the burden of emotional and psychological suffering is intensified for the victim’s family, and in many cases, the victim’s family has regretted their decision due to the severe emotional and psychological consequences and the torment of conscience. Therefore, the execution of retribution will not necessarily bring peace to the survivors, but one of the most important realities that is hidden in the official propaganda of the Islamic government is the destructive pressure of choosing between forgiveness or retribution on the survivors as individuals who are forced to make a decision about the life or death of others in the midst of their own tragedy. In many cases, because the law and religion allow for retribution, many of the victim’s heirs see themselves as helpless