Written by NUFDI Summer Fellow Armita Hooman Imagine seeing a man holding a bloody knife and a severed head, blood dripping from the blade as he walked around town. What would you think? How would you expect the law to punish him? Now, imagine sitting in a taxi not knowing whether the driver is a notorious serial killer/rapist or a normal person. That's precisely what society looks like when the justice system is an enabling force for criminal minds. The philosophy of law has long tried to theorize the definition and structure of criminal justice based on retribution rather than retaliation. Retaliation involves responding to a harm or wrong, with an equivalent harm or wrong. A desire for revenge or personal vengeance often drives it. The primary goal of retaliation is to inflict suffering on the offender similar to what was experienced by the victim, often out of anger or a desire for personal justice. It is more emotional and personal, may not follow legal or ethical standards, and can escalate conflicts. On the other hand, retribution is a theory of punishment in which the punishment is proportionate to the crime committed. It is based on the principle of moral justice. The main goal is to provide a morally appropriate response to wrongdoing, ensuring that the offender pays for their crime in a way that is deemed fair and just by societal standards. Retribution is more structured and is implemented through legal systems. It aims to maintain social order and justice rather than satisfying personal vendettas. Nonetheless, there is a mixture of retaliation and retribution within the IRI’s criminal justice system that is the basis for the Islamic Republic’s courts. When it comes to laws regarding family structure or the role of women in society, the IRI’s courts are extremely retaliatory regardless of the societal aspect of the crime. For instance, Article 301 of the Islamic Penal Code provides judicial protection for fathers and grandfathers who kill their children or grandchildren in the name of honor (honor killings). Furthermore, to add insult to injury, men are exempt from the death penalty and may receive lighter sentences for crimes a woman would receive a max sentence for. This is retaliatory because the law reflects personal vengeance rather than proportional justice, often influenced by cultural or religious norms instead of strict legal principles. Moreover, while the statutory punishment for crimes against women can be severe, the law often does not offer equal protection for women in cases of domestic violence or spousal abuse. This retaliatory nature is evident in the differential application of justice, where societal norms and personal vendettas can influence the severity of punishments; for example, women may receive harsher penalties for actions like adultery or failing to adhere to dress codes. But there are examples within the IRI’s Penal Code where it appears to aim for social prevention rather than personal revenge. For instance, Article 265 of the Islamic Penal Code states that consuming alcohol is punishable by 80 lashes. This punishment is retributive because it aims to administer a penalty proportional to the offense, reflecting the religious standards of the regime. Whereas, articles 233-234 specify punishments for same-sex acts, which can include death for men and lashes for women. These punishments are retributive as they aim to enforce religious codes, with penalties deemed appropriate to the perceived severity of the offense. Similarly, protestors are often charged with "acting against national security" (Article 286), leading to severe punishments, including imprisonment and even capital punishment. While this might initially seem retaliatory due to the state's desire to suppress dissent, it is also retributive because the punishment is seen as proportional to the crime of challenging the state’s authority. However, this rationale is often perceived as a pretext for suppression rather than genuine retributive justice. These examples emphasize how the Regime’s judicial system is structurally selective and gender apartheid. It’s retaliatory when it comes to crimes against humanity failing to prevent misdeeds, and it’s retributive when the “crime” is related to the Islamic Republic’s authority. The high number of executions and imprisonments for demonstrating and criticizing the regime's gender apartheid, and oppressive nature, illustrates how the legal system within the IRI is structurally inhumane. However, in the following paragraphs, we will delve into the consequences of the retaliatory aspects. For this purpose, we should note a recent example of unjust punishment.

The Shima Case

Shima, 15, raped and murdered in Tehran. Born in Mashhad in 2004 to drug-addicted parents, Shima was given up for adoption. Eventually, a couple adopts her and raises her as her own daughter.

Shima and her father when she was young. When she turns 15, she somehow discovers that she is adopted and, in a fit of anger, leaves home to search for her biological parents in Mashhad. However, upon arriving at the bus terminal, fear sets in, and she regrets her decision and calls home. Her parents, pleading with her to return, promise to accompany her to Mashhad to find her biological parents. She replies, "Okay, I’m coming back." These are the last words her parents will ever hear from her.

Shima and her parents at her last birthday party. They trace her footsteps to a taxi driver named Bohlul Abulhasanzadeh. He refused to confess at first, essentially meaning they did not have any evidence of wrongdoing, according to Islamic law. Shima’s parents stalked the taxi driver for a year, until one night, they heard a blood-curdling scream from a young girl. Immediately, they rescued the girl from danger and called local authorities. The evidence in the driver's home was extensive; the shoes and dresses of countless other young girls painted his house as evidence.

Bohlul Abulhasanzadeh, a serial rapist and murderer. Also a former taxi driver in Iran. Bohlul Abulhasanzadeh inevitably confessed he kept Shima in a room tied up, tortured her, and then killed her. Since he did not want anyone to have any evidence against him, he poured acid on her makeshift grave to conceal her corpse. The crime scene where he buried Shima. Based on the retaliatory nature of criminal justice in these cases, the court must have received a complaint filed by the victim's family (lawfully called “Oliya-e-dam”) for any judicial proceeding to have tangible punishments. Shima’s biological parents were summoned to court, stating they would accept money in exchange for his release. He pays the money but the court sends him to prison, intending to make him regret his actions. However, after two years, he writes to the court claiming that he is old and cannot endure the prison environment. As a result, he is released on bail. For all we know, this serial rapist and killer could now be working as a taxi driver, waiting for his next victim. The Islamic Republic’s legal system creates an environment where criminals believe they can escape severe punishment by using the regime's antiquated, gender-apartheid legal system to their advantage; thereby incentivizing further criminal behavior. Such a system focuses on punishing actions that challenge its authority rather than addressing crimes that threaten societal well-being. Since individuals with a history of serious crimes against humanity can evade substantial punishment, the law acts not only as an enabling force for criminal minds but also as another glaring example of how Islamic law is abhorrent and cruel. This selective application of justice undermines public trust and safety, allowing criminals to operate with impunity, ultimately failing to provide the moral and social justice that a retributive legal system aims to achieve.