Public trust in the judiciary is one of the fundamental indicators of achieving justice, and its absence paves the way for the emergence of personal justice-seeking. Personal justice-seeking is a behavior in which individuals, instead of referring to legal authorities, take matters into their own hands to obtain rights and punish violators. Such an approach not only contradicts the principles of the rule of law and legal order but also reflects the structural failure of society in delivering justice. Legal violence, including the implementation of severe and inhumane punishments such as the death penalty, can intensify this phenomenon, as it portrays violence as a legitimate tool and sends the message to citizens that violence is, under certain conditions, legal and justifiable. However, this is only one of the factors contributing to the decline in trust in the judicial system. Weakness in legislation, lack of full independence of judges and judicial institutions, political and economic influence in judicial decision-making, and structural inefficiencies in judicial bodies also play a decisive role in fostering distrust. In such circumstances, personal justice-seeking is not an ethical choice but rather a response to the lack of confidence in accessing true justice.

Recent events in Yasuj and Tabriz are clear examples of this phenomenon. In the case of the murder of a doctor in Yasuj and the execution of the killer, judicial procedures were officially carried out; however, the social and media reactions following the execution, including holding a grand ceremony for the murderer and the positive remarks made by some officials, conveyed a contradictory image of justice to society. In the Tabriz incident, the sexual assault of a child and the subsequent extrajudicial retaliation by the victim’s relatives highlighted the judiciary’s inefficiency in protecting the rights of victims and enforcing justice. In both cases, the media, through selective and exaggerated representation, played a significant role in amplifying personal reactions and creating a perception of distrust toward the judicial system. These events show that the state and judicial institutions are not only failing to prevent personal violence but are also part of the cycle that legitimizes violence and reproduces distrust.

The social consequences of this situation are broad and multilayered, and cannot be limited merely to an increase in personal violence. When public trust in judicial institutions declines, citizens resort to obtaining rights and enforcing justice themselves instead of turning to the law. This behavior leads to the formation of unofficial and arbitrary norms in society and impacts the legal order. Under such conditions, the implementation of severe and inhumane punishments like the death penalty—portrayed as legal violence—has dual consequences: on one hand, it may serve as a deterrent, but on the other, it legitimizes violence in the public mind and encourages individuals to engage in personal violence. The decline in psychological and social security, the increase in mistrust among individuals, and the weakening of social capital, along with the creation of a sense of inequality in access to justice, are other social consequences of this situation whose long-term effects on societal stability cannot be overlooked.

From a criminological perspective, personal justice-seeking should not be viewed merely as an emotional or criminal act but as a social response to the failure of the criminal justice system to restore the disrupted moral order in society. When the judicial process is solely focused on punishment and the suffering of the victim, the need for repair, and the restoration of a sense of justice in society are overlooked, a significant void emerges that is filled by unofficial and violent responses. In this situation, the act of personal justice-seeking is less about the law and more about restoring dignity, alleviating suffering, and redefining violated moral boundaries. From the viewpoint of cultural criminology, such reactions are shaped within the context of collective emotions, moral outrage, and public perception of injustice—where society is not seeking the implementation of a verdict, but rather the “acknowledgment of suffering” and a “symbolic response” to the severe violation of values. In this framework, what emerges is a kind of accumulated moral outrage that is activated when a judicial ruling, even if legal, is perceived as lacking social and emotional resonance. Therefore, personal justice-seeking should be seen as a sign of the criminal justice system’s failure to produce meaning, offer social repair, and provide a moral response—a failure that, if left unaddressed, will lead to the reproduction of a cycle of both symbolic and tangible violence in society.

In the end, it can be said that personal justice-seeking is less the result of an individual decision and more a sign of dysfunction in justice as a public institution. When citizens feel that justice is not reliably accessible through formal channels, actions outside the legal framework gradually become understandable and even defensible. The persistence of this situation blurs the line between law and arbitrariness and presents a serious challenge to legal order. Containing this trend requires a serious reevaluation of how justice is administered, strengthening public trust, and redefining the role of responsible institutions in ensuring accountability. In the absence of such reforms, not only will personal justice-seeking persist, but the gap between society and the legal system will deepen.