The Role of Social Media in Shaping Public Opinion and Its Impact on Criminal Policy in Iran and Afghanistan

Abstract

In recent decades, social media have emerged as one of the most influential factors affecting social behavior, crime representation, and the formation of public opinion, playing a dual role within the field of criminal policy. On the one hand, they function as tools for enhancing public awareness, preventing crime, and increasing social participation; on the other hand, they may contribute to the spread of rumors, the intensification of perceived insecurity, the facilitation of certain criminal behaviors, and the creation of artificial pressures on policymaking institutions. A comparative examination of the role of social media in Iran and Afghanistan demonstrates that, despite cultural similarities and closely related social structures, the two countries have experienced different trajectories in managing cyberspace and its influence on criminalization processes and criminal policy development. Iran, benefiting from a relatively coherent legal system and specialized institutions such as the Cyber Police (FATA Police), has pursued an approach based on controlled criminalization and regulatory governance of media environments. In contrast, Afghanistan—particularly following recent political transformations—has faced challenges including the absence of stable legal mechanisms, institutional fragility, and the exploitation of social media platforms by extremist groups. Employing a descriptive–analytical approach and drawing upon criminological and communication theories, this study examines the impact of social media on behavioral patterns, norm formation, criminal policy processes, and criminalization practices in both countries. The findings indicate that while social media create significant opportunities for transparency and social oversight, in the absence of effective legal frameworks they may also become drivers of instability, transformation of crime patterns, and intensified public opinion pressure on penal decision-making. The study concludes by proposing recommendations for improving criminal policymaking in both jurisdictions.