Conflict Between Penal Populism and Decriminalization in Iran’s Criminal Justice System

The policy of decriminalization has been embraced within the Iranian criminal justice system, and it is assumed that under such circumstances, this policy should be uniformly reflected across criminal laws. However, in certain cases, contradictory and opposing approaches by the legislature can be observed. On one hand, the legislator aims to moderate punishments; on the other hand, a completely different orientation supports punitive and severity-based policies. Under such circumstances, the ordinary living space of citizens turns into a penalized environment, leading to the marginalization of justice-centered approaches and the dominance of security-driven and punitive tendencies in the realm of criminal law. Given the significance of this issue, the present article adopts a descriptive-analytical and library-based methodology to examine the contradiction between penal populism and decriminalization policies in Iran's criminal justice system. According to the conducted analysis, it can be stated that the new legislative period (beginning in 2013) may be referred to as a period of expanded decriminalization policies. Nevertheless, from a policy depth perspective, within both general and specific laws, signs of tension between penal populism and decriminalization—or a lack of confidence in the new regulatory frameworks—persist. Examples of this contradiction can be found in several statutes, including the Law on the Protection of Promoters of Virtue and Preventers of Vice (2015), the Plan for Intensifying the Fight Against Violent Crimes (2011), the Law on Combating the Financing of Terrorism (2015), the Law on the Punishment of Persons Involved in Unauthorized Audiovisual Activities (2007), and the Islamic Penal Code (2013). A notable manifestation of penal populism is particularly evident in the Islamic Penal Code (2013), which reveals a strong inclination toward the use of severe punishments. Therefore, it is imperative for the legislator to address and rectify the contradiction between penal populism and decriminalization by undertaking the necessary legal reforms aligned with the overarching national policy of adopting minimal penal intervention.