In both narratives, there is a moment when time seems to stop—a moment when the individual or the family realizes they can no longer wait. In one case, a doctor loses his life at work; in the other, a child who should have been within the safest circle of life becomes the victim of profound and irreparable violence. What links these two incidents is not merely the occurrence of violence, but the path that led to it—a path filled with silence, failure, lack of response, and a sense of abandonment. At the end of this path, anger becomes the final language possible: a language that is violent, costly, and irreversible.

Contrary to simplistic assumptions, anger is not an abnormal or purely destructive emotion. In psychology, anger is recognized as a functional emotion that becomes activated in response to threats, injustice, and violations of human dignity. (1,2) Anger signals the perception that something wrong has occurred. However, the restorative function of anger remains active only when there is the possibility of being heard, receiving a response, and achieving redress. In the absence of these possibilities, anger neither subsides nor resolves but accumulates within the hidden layers of the individual and collective psyche. In recent years, certain social events in Iran have revealed concrete examples of this accumulation. The killing of a doctor in Yasuj, following disputes related to a medical procedure, is a telling case. Public focus often centered on the moment of the murder, but the process leading up to it was largely overlooked: repeated visits, feelings of being ignored, vague responses, and the lack of an effective mechanism to handle complaints. In such a context, anger gradually transforms from a natural emotional reaction into a chronic and directionless sentiment. Before committing the act of violence, the patient’s family had experienced a prolonged period of helplessness and powerlessness—an experience in which the healthcare system was not perceived as a refuge, but as part of the problem, lacking any supportive function.

The frustration-aggression theory explains that the more severe, chronic, and unresolved the frustration, the more likely it is to turn into aggression. (3,4) This relationship intensifies when individuals feel that legitimate avenues for seeking justice have been denied. Frustrations rooted in institutional failure—such as distrust in the healthcare or judicial systems—are particularly prone to generating accumulated anger, as they undermine perceptions of justice and expose individuals to the sense that they are not only harmed but also unseen and unheard. (5)

The case of the child sexual assault in Tabriz reveals a deeper layer of this phenomenon. The assault is not merely a criminal offense—it is a direct threat to parental identity, family dignity, and the fundamental meaning of safety. In such a context, a specific kind of anger is triggered—what psychology refers to as “moral anger,” which is rooted in the severe violation of core values and is entangled with feelings of responsibility, shame, and moral failure. (6,7) The parents are not only confronted with the child’s suffering but with the paralyzing question of why they failed to protect their child. In these conditions, any delay or ambiguity in the judicial process can be experienced as a continuation of injustice. From a psychological perspective, institutional silence is interpreted as indifference and intensifies the anger. Parents who feel the formal system lacks either the ability or the will to support the child and family may come to see violence as the last means of reclaiming their lost dignity. At this point, the line between defense and revenge becomes dangerously blurred, and in the absence of credible avenues for justice, moral anger can turn into impulsive and costly actions. (8)

A key common factor in both narratives is “institutional distrust.” When repeated experiences of failure reinforce learned helplessness at both the individual and collective levels, the individual no longer sees themselves as the victim of a specific incident, but as the victim of an unjust structure. (9) In such a context, anger surpasses the individual level and becomes a social emotion—one that spreads through empathy, identification, and media representation. (10) Social networks play a crucial role in this process. Emotional narratives related to murder or sexual assault—especially when they carry high moral weight—can lead to collective emotional overflow. In this space, violent actions are sometimes portrayed not as errors but as understandable responses or alternative forms of justice. (11) While such representations do not justify violence, they lend it emotional legitimacy and increase the likelihood of its repetition.

From the perspective of emotion regulation, this situation is associated with a weakened ability to manage emotions. Emotion regulation is the process by which an individual controls the intensity, duration, and manner of expressing their emotions. (12) Severe psychological stress, identity threat, and institutional frustration can disrupt this capacity and shift cognitive control in favor of impulsive responses. (13) This is why many perpetrators of violence are themselves shocked by the severity of their actions after the fact. What is important to note is that such behaviors are not necessarily the result of personality disorders or antisocial tendencies. Research shows that a significant portion of severe violence is the product of moral exhaustion, chronic psychological pressure, and a sense of social abandonment. (14) In this sense, the violent individual is not so much rebelling against society as they are trying to regain a minimum sense of control and meaning in a collapsed world.

In the midst of all this, institutional responsibility cannot be reduced to reactive and disciplinary responses. Judicial, medical, and support institutions only play a deterrent role when they intervene as mediators before the explosion of anger. Delay, ambiguity, lack of clear communication, and lack of accountability are not merely administrative inefficiencies—they communicate messages of injustice and exclusion. When institutions fail to acknowledge anger in its early stages, they effectively facilitate the transformation of moral anger into violence. In such situations, the violent individual is not acting in opposition to social order, but in the absence of it. A sole focus on individual punishment—without addressing the psychological and institutional roots of anger—reproduces a dysfunctional cycle comprised of institutional failure, accumulated anger, violent eruption, and then criminal punishment without structural reform. This cycle not only fails to prevent the recurrence of violence, but also pushes anger into deeper layers of society.

What stands out as a common theme in both narratives is the urgent need to rethink how we confront anger. Before anger becomes a threat to social order, it is a sign of deep fractures in trust, justice, and institutional accountability. Sustainable violence prevention requires a multi-level approach that includes rebuilding institutional trust, transparency in procedures, the creation of real and safe pathways for seeking justice, and the recognition of the moral function of anger before it reaches the point of explosion. Without such interventions, anger will continue to accumulate beneath the surface of society, and any event with high moral weight can become the spark for the next eruption.

Footnotes:

1- Izard, C. E. (2010). The many meanings of emotion. Emotion Review, 2(4), 363–370.

2- Averill, J. R. (2012). Anger and aggression. Springer.

3- Berkowitz, L. (2012). A cognitive-neoassociation theory of aggression. American Psychologist, 67(1), 10–24.

4- Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. Yale University Press.

5- Mikula, G. (2003). Judgments of injustice: A critical review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 793–811.

6- Scheff, T. J., & Retzinger, S. M. (1991). Emotions and violence: Shame and rage in destructive conflicts. Lexington Books.

7- Goldenberg, A., Halperin, E., van Zomeren, M., & Gross, J. J. (2020). The process model of group-based emotion: Integrating intergroup emotion and emotion regulation perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 83–111.

8- Silver, E., & Miller, L. L. (2004). Sources of informal social control in mental health services: A conceptual framework. Criminology, 42(3), 551–583.

9- Gilligan, J. (2001). Preventing violence. Thames & Hudson.

10- Goldenberg, A., & Halperin, E. (2016). Moral emotions and conflict: Anger, contempt, and hope. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 1–15.

11- van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 649–664.

12- Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26.

13- LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. Simon & Schuster.

14- Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. Allen Lane.