Of decisions and decision making

The Shahzeb murder case

On December 25 last year when the whole world thought it was the season to be jolly, an unfortunate event turned the festivities into lamentation for Aurangzeb Khan and his family who lost their only son, Shahzeb Khan. The issue gained instant attention as prime suspects Shahrukh Jatoi and Nawab Siraj Talpur belonged to the elite class and soon after the incident remained untraceable for days.

Shahzeb’s father, a serving Deputy Superintendent of Police, was quick to register FIR 519 under murder case 302 at the Darakhshan Police Station in Karachi. Shahzeb’s friends, family and the larger community also extended support both physically and through social networking websites. ‘In Memory of Shahzeb Khan’ pages were set up almost instantaneously to narrate the horrendous tale of the murder to the world. The larger community also got involved and the entire country started debating on the worth of life. The nation protested, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry took suo motu notice and finally in June 2013 the Anti terrorism Court (ATC) sentenced Shahrukh Jatoi and Nawab Siraj Talpur to capital punishment. However, the story does not end here as in the first week of September 2013, the parents of the deceased decided to pardon the offenders. In all this sequence of events, several decisions were made by the different individuals and groups. If we look at them in detail, the intricate process of decision making is revealed at different levels.

First and foremost, on December 25, Shahzeb made a decision to protect his sister from harassment by Ghulam Murtaza Lashari (an employee of Siraj Talpur). The propelling force behind Shahzeb’s act was his motivation to protect the honour and integrity of his sister. Shahzeb’s decision to stand up and speak for the wrong could be explained using Kant’s idea of ‘good will’ which suggests that one acts out of a sense of moral obligation. The individual does not focus on the consequences of the action, rather takes the step because it is the morally right thing to do. So Shahzeb’s decision was probably a result of ‘good will’ to protect his sister because that would be the morally correct thing to do.

Let’s now look at Shahrukh Jatoi and Siraj Talpur’s behaviour and more importantly the thought that went behind their decision. Both of these young blooded boys wanted to protect their ego. Shahzeb’s father jumped into the situation motivated to make peace between the parties. However, Shahrukh and Siraj were determined to exhibit their power. They consciously decided to follow Shahzeb and shoot him. According to Lerner and Keltner (2000), angry people make lower risk assessments. Lerner and Tiedens (2006) further add that anger makes individuals pay attention to selective information which in turn increases risk-taking behaviour. This means that Shahrukh and Siraj most likely took a heuristic or a mental shortcut to decide what they should do. They wanted to protect their ego, they had access to weapons and so using the limited knowledge, they took a decision to shoot Shahzeb probably thinking that it would scare him. They were under assessing the risk that Shahzeb could die. Their decision was clearly flawed and this was primarily because they were experiencing heightened emotions while making this decision.

Let’s now explore the decision of the victim’s family. Shahzeb’s father decided to pursue the case by registering an FIR. This can be explained using the self-determination theory in which an individual has a higher internal perceived locus of control which means that they are motivated by their own choices, values, and interests rather than focusing on the environment. Shahzeb’s father decided to step forward and pursue the case possibly because he assumed responsibility and thought he needed to act or no one else would. In June, Shahzeb’s father reported being satisfied with the court’s decision. However, by September, he decided to forgive the culprits in the name of Allah.

There are two possible hypotheses as to what caused the father to make this decision. The first idea says that it was out of fear while the other school of thought feels that it stemmed out of greed for money. If this decision was a result of fear then several studies have shown that under this emotion, individuals are more likely to report higher assessment of risk. This means that the family over anticipated risk of danger because of some form of coercion. If, however, this decision stems out of greed then ‘Hyperbolic discounting’ is the principle at play. It says that we look at short term goals only. Monetary gain is the short term goal, whereas revamping the juridical system is the long term goal that was easily overlooked.

We look at the role of the larger community in this incidence, we see that we all stood up for justice in this case, however, when the victim’s family recently announced their decision to forgive the offender, there was an outburst of hateful comments on social networking sites. As a community, our decision to loathe the family can be explained using the principle of ‘Bounded Rationality’ which suggests that individuals try to act make decisions based on limited knowledge. The fact is that we are not completely aware of all sides of the story and therefore in a poor position to jump to a conclusion as to whether what the family did was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Rationality also means that we are able to see decisions in shades of grey rather than in perfect black and white.

The writer is a faculty member in the Department of Psychology at Forman Christian College and tweets: @anitasaleem