Dejudicialization, as one of the pillars of modern criminal policy, seeks to reduce excessive intervention by the criminal justice system and to emphasize effective, preventive, and humane responses to crime. Over the past two decades, the Iranian legislature has sought to pave the way for achieving efficient justice through the adoption of institutions such as alternative punishments to imprisonment, deferred sentencing, suspension of prosecution, and the semi-freedom system. However, the inconsistent implementation of these mechanisms within substantive and procedural criminal laws has led to challenges in realizing the true objectives of dejudicialization. This study aims to analyze the challenges of dejudicialization in Iran’s legislative criminal policy and to compare it with successful models in the legal systems of the United States, France, and England, in order to propose pathways for invigorating the criminal justice system. The present research is an analytical–comparative study conducted using a descriptive–analytical method.
The findings indicate that in the Islamic Penal Code, the adverse consequences of dejudicialization—arising from the unprofessional selection of alternative punishments, delays in the administration of justice due to deferred sentencing, and the discretionary application of the semi-freedom system—have hindered the realization of this policy’s reformative objectives. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, the institution of suspended prosecution faces challenges such as ambiguity regarding the scope of applicable offenses, conflicts with fundamental principles of criminal procedure—including the presumption of innocence and the separation of prosecutorial and judicial authorities—and the lack of clear criteria for initiating and terminating suspension orders.
The comparative study revealed that models such as plea bargaining in the United States, the principle of prosecutorial expediency in France, and the consideration of public interest in England—through reliance on judicial oversight, legal transparency, and flexibility in prosecutorial decisions—have contributed to a more effective and dynamic system of criminal justice.