What Benefit Does the Execution of the Killer of Setayesh Bring?

The taking of the life of six-year-old Setayesh, the innocent Afghan girl, brings nothing but deep sorrow and regret. The horrific incident requires sincere empathy and emotional support for the victim's vulnerable family, legal and judicial action against the killer, and efforts to uncover and confront the roots of this terrifying event. However, a thought-provoking 'voice' has once again become loud and active: 'The execution of the killer, the sooner the better!'... The advocates for execution come from a long and colorful list: from scholars and cultural figures to politicians and democracy advocates, from high-ranking police officials to many of Setayesh's compatriots in Afghanistan and Iran, including significant parts of Iranian society; among them many women living in the area of the incident who emphasized: 'If necessary, we will sell our bangles to ensure Setayesh's rights are upheld and her blood is not trampled.' A significant reaction also relates to a piece in the 'Qanoon' newspaper, close to reformists; this newspaper stated: 'The manner of Setayesh's murder is so horrific that it leaves no defense for this boy [the killer] and for human rights defenders opposing the execution of children under 18.' But does the execution of a 17-year-old boy bring any social equivalent other than a temporary sense of solace for the family of the innocent child? Will it serve as a deterrent to similar strange and inhumane crimes and violence? Do social issues and the cultural-psychological roots of such unfortunate events get resolved or even diminished by executing a teenager? This is an important question that once again makes reflection on the punishment of 'execution' necessary. The ineffectiveness of capital punishment has become increasingly evident, to the extent that at least in the field of drug trafficking, senior judicial officials of the Islamic Republic have been compelled to seek legal reforms. From 'Bijeh' to 'Setayesh's Killer' Muhammad Bijeh (known as Bijeh) is a well-known and significant example; he was the perpetrator of the horrific murder of 26 children in Pakdasht, executed a few months after his arrest in March 2005. Hussein Asgharzadeh, the judge of the most famous murders in the last two decades in Iran, who also handled Bijeh's case, points out noteworthy points in an important interview with the Nowruz special edition of 'Etemad'. Although he states regarding Bijeh's execution: 'It had a virtue, which was to alleviate the pain and suffering of the victims' families and restore a sense of calm and security to society and demonstrate the power of justice and police,' he immediately adds: 'In terms of the character of the accused, criminal psychologists and criminologists should have worked much more on this character and tested it. Perhaps we could have better identified the factors constituting the crime — even at this level — in him. Then, in our legal processes, in educational and training matters, in schools and universities, and in religious issues, this could have an impact.' This observation reflects one aspect of the futility of capital punishment in deterring crimes. This special homicide investigator emphasizes that 'the same Muhammad [Bijeh] is the product of thousands of dangerous factors in which thousands of others played a role, failed; this is the product and manifestation of the errors of a society that has reached this point.' Someone who has been closely involved in important legal cases (such as the famous 'Persimmon Garden' case) emphasizes that 'we did not give life to individuals to take it away. If these individuals have committed illegal acts that harm the freedom of others, then we can prevent that by depriving them of their freedom. This is why imprisonment was created in the world. Furthermore, unfortunately or fortunately, experience has shown us that execution, which is the largest, most severe, most terrifying, most effective, and most fearsome punishment, has not had such an effect — at least in the field of drug trafficking...' He also states that 'as much as possible, this punishment [execution] should be abolished; especially since today many punishments burden the offender.' Does execution reduce the rate of crime? Amnesty International, in a report referring to research results, emphasizes that the assumption that capital punishment reduces crime rates more than other forms of punishment (such as life imprisonment) is not a credible hypothesis. The Constitutional Court of South Africa also states that 'it is self-deception to believe that an increase in the number of executions reduces the heavy statistics of crime; the most important deterrent is the arrest, conviction, and punishment of offenders.' Various studies show that the majority of execution victims are the impoverished, individuals belonging to underprivileged and defenseless social strata living on the margins of large cities, or those whose absence authoritarian and repressive regimes prefer for their political and security interests. It can be confidently said that capital punishment, more than serving as a 'solution,' distances society and government from addressing the deep and fundamental issues of complex and multifaceted social problems and various social harms. Iran, 'Setayesh,' and revenge against the teenage killer The execution of the 16-year-old killer of the defenseless six-year-old girl brings nothing but the satisfaction of revenge for the family or a segment of the agitated from the unfortunate event — even in the short term — and also announces the authority and expresses neutrality and demonstrates independence by the judiciary of the Islamic Republic; what other equivalent will it have? Will it play an effective or even minimal role in preventing similar problems and related social issues? If the judiciary keeps the offender as a witness before society through long-term imprisonment, if psychologists, criminologists, anthropologists, legal experts, and sociologists have sufficient opportunity for thorough and long-term examination and research in such cases, will there not be greater social, cultural, and moral achievements resulting from punishment? The public execution of Setayesh's killer, even tomorrow, will provide a real balm to which societal wounds, and even to the grieving family? Will ongoing material and spiritual support for the victim's family by the government, civil society organizations, and even insurance companies and psychologists yield more tangible positive outcomes? Will the public execution of Setayesh's killer, in front of several thousand citizens — including children and teenagers — not lead to the reproduction of violence and cruelty in new forms? In these days of public outrage over the murder of the innocent Setayesh, it is hoped that the nearly four-decade record of education and the Islamic Republic's broadcasting will be evaluated; it is hoped that the achievements of cultural-social restrictions and the futile and baseless taboos will be criticized; it is hoped that the record of the official clergy and the teachings and propaganda of official and governmental ideological platforms will be evaluated; it is hoped that the quality, quantity, and extent of welfare and social security in the Islamic Republic will be weighed in the scales of expert judgment; it is hoped that the achievements of the judiciary and the outcomes of all similar and previous executions will be evaluated by legal experts, sociologists, criminologists, and other specialists; and it is hoped that the record of the fusion of the institution of religion and the institution of government in Iran, and the spreading of the umbrella of hypocrisy and deception and concealment by the propaganda and repressive arms of religious tyranny will be critically examined. Maximum empathy and support for the family of the innocent Setayesh and Afghan migrants and refugees and eastern neighbors (the noble and suffering people of Afghanistan) is one thing; resistance against the continuation of violent and futile execution punishment is another.