The murder of a doctor in Yasuj and the widespread support for the perpetrator is an issue that, amid the significant crises and incidents of recent months, has gone largely overlooked. Although the act itself was deeply painful, the broad support for the murderer—even from official figures—revealed that we are facing a fundamental crisis.

The roots of this event can be traced through several paths.

First, in recent decades we have witnessed the rise of pseudoscience and efforts to undermine science and scientific thinking—including medicine and physicians—across the world. The growing inclination toward unscientific and traditional treatments and skepticism about the outcomes of modern medicine (such as vaccination) has become a global crisis. In Iran, this global crisis has taken on more serious dimensions due to the state’s inclination toward tradition in the ongoing struggle between tradition and modernity. Some clerics and non-clerics, by promoting strange ideas, have advocated for a concept known as “Islamic medicine” in opposition to modern medicine and have attempted to discredit legitimate scientific achievements.

Second, we are facing a decline in social capital and interpersonal trust in society. While this phenomenon is global and not unique to our society—stemming in part from the expansion of social media in the age of communication—living under authoritarian rule, the prolonged and severe economic crisis, and the inefficiency of official structures and institutions in solving crises have all exacerbated the erosion of trust and the decline of social capital in Iran. For example, in the 2023 (1402) Iranian Values and Attitudes Survey, about 82% of respondents, when asked how much people trust one another, selected “not at all” or “very little.” This contrasts with results from the 1970s (1350s), in the only previous nationwide monitoring of values and attitudes, where approximately 45% of respondents chose those options.

The decline of social capital and interpersonal trust matters because their absence eliminates the possibility of cooperation—thus making development, economic growth, democracy, and so on unattainable. In the words of Robert Putnam, social capital is the oil that lubricates the gears of society. Moreover, declining trust not only reduces the chances of improvement but also fuels the rise of violence. When citizens view others as deceitful, dishonest, and untrustworthy, they may, under acute and critical conditions—such as the untimely death of a loved one—come to believe that another person is to blame for that loss. This perception increases the likelihood of violence. Furthermore, increased levels of violence in society further erode trust and social capital, trapping society in a vicious cycle that could ultimately lead to the loss of its previous achievements. The relationship between lower social capital and trust and the prevalence of revenge-driven violence outside the legal system is also observable in a provincial comparison: in Iran’s western provinces, where this kind of violence is more frequent, interpersonal trust is significantly lower.

Third, the issue becomes even more striking when considering that, according to the 2023 (1402) Iranian Values and Attitudes Survey, doctors are among the most trusted professional groups in society. While 23.6% of respondents considered shopkeepers and traders highly trustworthy, and only 17.4% and 13.7% said the same about celebrities and politicians respectively, the figure for doctors was slightly above 50%.

These survey results reinforce the idea that, despite declining social capital, the rise of unscientific treatments globally, the undermining of medicine in Iran, and the alignment of parts of the establishment with this discrediting effort, physicians—who are directly involved in people’s lives—have still managed to retain a relatively high level of public trust. Yet herein lies another layer of the issue: the institution that should serve as the most trustworthy and reliable arbiter—the one people turn to for resolution—has lost the public’s trust. Politicians and the judiciary are no longer seen as trustworthy. This lack of a credible arbiter means that, when individuals become suspicious of others, they no longer seek formal resolution but instead attempt to enforce justice through violence themselves.

As a result, it can be assessed that the performance of Iran’s judiciary and ruling system has contributed to an increase in acts of violence framed as justice in the form of revenge. The natural outcome of this phenomenon—beyond the tragic loss of life and public safety, which are serious in themselves—is a further sharp decline in trust and social capital. Yet trust is essential for growth, development, and democracy. Modern political philosophers consider the provision of security to be the most fundamental duty of the state. Even thinkers such as Hobbes, who justified the absolute power of the state, grounded its legitimacy in ending the “war of all against all” and securing protection from the threats posed by fellow citizens. As this trend accelerates, even the state’s most basic functions and sources of legitimacy will be eroded.

Fourth, another issue that leads to direct acts of revenge instead of turning to the judiciary is the misalignment between existing laws and the prevailing worldview of a significant portion of society. Although this issue is not directly related to the main case discussed, it is highly relevant in many other instances. For example, Asia News reported a case in which the family of a young boy who had been sexually assaulted by a middle-aged man responded with sexual violence in retaliation. This example, and many others like it, can be understood through the lens that laws concerning family issues, sexual assault, and rape in Iran stem from a fundamentally different world and bear no resemblance to contemporary legal knowledge worldwide. While it may be the case that the religious jurisprudence which forms the basis of Iran’s legislation was once helpful according to the knowledge of the pre-modern world, decades and centuries of studies, experiences, and theory now necessitate serious legal reform based on up-to-date research. For instance, the traditional marriage model—based on dowry and unequal rights between men and women—has turned the process of separation into a complicated and highly tense ordeal, completely at odds with contemporary Iranian understandings of gender roles. Another example is the legal treatment of the death penalty as retribution (qisas), which carries a heavy sentence inconsistent with human rights standards and modern legal norms. And yet, if the victim’s family chooses to forgive the convicted individual, that person may be entirely exempt from punishment. The complexity and difficulty of proving sexual assault and rape, along with the strange definitions and the unusual punishment frameworks, fall under this same category. It seems that from the ground up, concepts of gender, family, citizenship rights, and many other issues must be redefined based on human rights principles, secular and modern frameworks, and scientific research.

In conclusion, to prevent the escalation of violence, restore the judiciary’s role as the rightful authority for delivering justice, and create opportunities for economic development, increased freedoms, democracy, and similar demands, Iranian society has no solution other than a fundamental transformation in its judiciary and legislative systems. This transformation must aim at an independent judiciary, democratized legislation, and the secularization of both. In reality, resolving today’s social, economic, and other crises is tied to a fundamental overhaul of political structures. Furthermore, if the ruling system fails to develop the capacity to address and resolve social problems—and also fails to integrate broader segments of society into the decision-making and political participation processes—it is foreseeable that factions seeking to dismantle the political structure may emerge, drawing support from military forces and mobilizing under fascistic ideologies.

Yasuj, Judiciary, SocialCapital, TrustCrisis, Iran, Majid_ShiehAli, Violence