Public execution is a punishment that, in some societies, has been used as a tool aimed at deterring crime and instilling fear. Nevertheless, according to statistical studies and scientific findings, carrying out punishment in public not only has no significant effect on reducing violent crime rates but also leads to the normalization and reproduction of violence in human societies. The aim here is to examine the ineffectiveness of public execution in achieving deterrent goals and its negative consequences, by drawing on criminological, jurisprudential, social-psychological foundations and international data.

From the past, capital punishment has been used in many legal and penal systems as the most severe reaction to serious crimes. The traditional justification for public punishment has been “the display of justice” and “creating public fear” to prevent crime. Currently, Iran is one of the few countries where public executions are carried out. The question that arises here is: Do such actions actually have a deterrent effect in reducing crime, or do they, on the contrary, reinforce the cycle of social violence? Many legal scholars, sociologists, psychologists, and religious jurists do not consider public executions to be without problems, because this legal authority—which in Iran lies with the presiding judge—results in social violence and has adverse effects on public psychology, and contradicts the presumption of innocence (according to Article 37 of the Constitution).

Examining Public Execution Based on Criminological and Legal Foundations
Public execution is in clear conflict with the teachings of criminology. Supporters of public punishment (including execution) argue that when the law, life, property, and honor are violated, punishment must be certain and inevitable, and they consider this type of punishment as instructive. However, from the perspectives of criminology, including sociology and criminal psychology, this type of punishment is questionable, because the criminal who is to be sentenced to qisas, execution, or other penalties, must endure only that one punishment, and carrying it out in public imposes a kind of additional punishment. In fact, when a human life is taken, destroying their reputation and dignity is not justifiable. It can also be said that punishment in public does not align with the principle of the individuality of punishments, because this act not only affects the offender but also implicates their family, bringing them disgrace as well.

From the standpoint of human rights and civil rights, public execution is unjustifiable, because punishment is a human response to another human. Therefore, in an Islamic society, hanging someone in public view is not justifiable from an Islamic and human rights perspective. Iranian law does not explicitly foresee public execution; its implementation depends on the nature of the crime and specific circumstances. In February 2008 (Bahman 1386), then-Chief Justice Hashemi Shahroudi, through a directive, made public execution conditional upon the approval of the Chief Justice and social necessities, and prohibited the publication of its images. This directive followed extensive protests by international organizations. That same year, Amnesty International stated in a declaration that Iran is the only country that still uses public hanging. However, judges claim that the Chief Justice’s directive is not legally binding and that they have the authority to issue public execution sentences at their own discretion to restore public peace. According to Clause 5 of Article 156 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the judiciary is an independent body that supports individual and social rights and is responsible for realizing justice and taking appropriate measures to prevent crime. Thus, according to this article, public execution is not permissible.

Examining Public Execution from a Jurisprudential Perspective
From a jurisprudential perspective, whenever the legislative authority deems that public punishment distorts the image of Islam, it considers it impermissible and believes that if social interests require it, such methods should be avoided. Moreover, in Shia jurisprudence, carrying out public punishment during the absence of the Imam is not allowed. Those who consider public punishment religiously justifiable refer to the jurisprudential source: “Let a group of the believers witness their punishment”. Here, “witness” means overseeing the execution of punishment, not mere observation; it refers to testimony. Furthermore, in Arabic, the word ta’ifa (group) refers to between 2 and 10 people, and the intention is that some people testify that the punishment was carried out, not that a large crowd observes it. More importantly, the jurisprudential source refers to a “group of believers”. According to religious principles, a believer is someone who does not commit major or minor sins—unfortunately, in modern societies, such people are very few and hard to find. Therefore, it appears that public punishment is not defensible from a religious standpoint either. In the Quran, the only verse referring to public punishment concerns the crime of adultery: “Let a group of the believers witness their punishment”. That is, when both parties are being flogged, some people should be present to oversee the execution of the sentence, and this is what is meant by public punishment. Moreover, interpretation of this verse shows that the phrase “a group of believers” can mean as few as one person—meaning even if one person sees the punishment carried out, the command of the verse is fulfilled. With this explanation, the Quran only mentions adultery, and even for that, the presence of a single person—even inside the prison courtyard—is sufficient. Therefore, public implementation of all punishments has no religious necessity, and failure to conduct them publicly does not constitute opposition to religious law.

Punishment in Public Violates the Rights of Society
Social reactions are designed to punish and intimidate and are defended by some legal scholars and religious authorities. However, many jurists do not consider it permissible and regard it as contrary to the presumption of innocence under Article 37 of the Constitution. If we assume that the basis of public execution is social deterrence, then it implies that all members of society are potential criminals and at risk of committing crimes. However, this view is clearly at odds with Article 37 of the Constitution, which states: “Innocence is the principle, and no one is considered guilty in the eyes of the law unless their guilt is proven in a competent court.” Therefore, such violent ceremonies align neither with religious principles, legal outcomes, nor sociological teachings. If someone makes a mistake, society may punish them—but punishment should not be driven by revenge. Hence, considering the emphasis of religious law on forgiveness and God’s concealment of faults, publicly shaming the offender and promoting a culture of violence and revenge among the people is neither correct nor acceptable.

Examining Public Execution from Theoretical and Psychological Perspectives
Classical and modern criminological theories, including the theory of the normalization of violence, indicate that repeated exposure to violent acts can internalize them as legitimate solutions in the minds of observers. Watching scenes of execution—especially for children and adolescents—rather than provoking disgust, fosters imitation and acceptance of violence. From the perspective of criminal psychology as well, public execution exacerbates violence in society. Public executions force some people to witness scenes that may be incompatible with their mental disposition and that they normally would not wish to see. For many, public execution results in emotional desensitization. According to child rights experts, the presence of children at such scenes is a clear violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Iran has signed. Human rights organizations stress that public execution not only fails to “deter” but, by promoting violence and causing psychological harm, also threatens public safety.

Certainly, any rational parent would prevent their child from viewing violent scenes. For example, watching a violent film or the slaughter of an animal is deemed inappropriate for a child’s age, and it is believed that such scenes may negatively impact their life and future. Thus, it is evident that watching a real execution—the death and pleading of a condemned person—inflicts irreparable harm on children and may normalize violence within broader society. As decades of experience have shown, repeated public executions have failed to reduce crime.

Examining Public Execution Based on Statistical Findings and Comparative Studies
Numerous international studies emphasize the lack of a direct relationship between public execution and crime reduction. A report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has shown that there is no statistical evidence of the long-term deterrent effect of executions. Comparative research in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia—which still resort to public executions—has demonstrated that murder and violent crime rates have not sustainably decreased following such punishments. In contrast, the experience of countries that abolished the death penalty decades ago shows a significant drop in homicide and organized crime rates. This highlights the effectiveness of preventive, educational, and rehabilitative policies compared to harsh and public punishments.

Conclusion
Public execution is a violent and humiliating act that, in addition to affecting the condemned individual, involves the general public. In Iranian law, such punishment is not explicitly stipulated and mostly depends on the discretion of the judge and the specifics of the case. Nevertheless, referring to legal provisions to justify this action remains vague and contentious.

Scientific, psychological, and statistical studies show that public executions have no significant role in reducing crime and instead lead to the reproduction of violence and psychological and social harm. Genuine crime prevention can only be achieved through cultural development, education, and social measures—not by spreading fear and terror.

The media—especially IRIB and cultural institutions in the country—must prioritize prevention, as prevention is always easier than cure. Unfortunately, despite the presence of dozens of preventive institutions with substantial budgets, their outcomes have been far from satisfactory. Public execution is not only ineffective in deterring social crimes, but it also promotes violence. Therefore, it is appropriate that either such practices be legally abolished entirely or, at the very least, judges refrain from issuing such sentences in practice.