Criminalization in all human societies is regarded as one of the necessary tools in the hands of governments to confront anti-social behaviors. To prevent governments from attacking individuals' freedoms and human rights under the pretext of criminalization, legal experts have proposed several criteria for criminalization. These criteria are known as the “principles of criminalization.” One of the principles of criminalization is legal paternalism, under which the criterion for criminalization is the discretion of the authorities. According to this criterion, criminalization can pose a serious threat to human rights, particularly to individual freedoms, equality, and human dignity. This research seeks to, through an analytical-descriptive approach, define and explain criminalization in light of the principle of legal paternalism, while also addressing the risks and challenges this type of criminalization poses to citizens' human rights and demonstrating how criminalization based on “legal paternalism” can threaten citizens' human rights. At the same time, this research proposes solutions for moderating criminalization in the context of legal patriarchy.The research findings indicate that criminalization within the framework of legal patriarchy, if applied indefinitely and unconditionally, can jeopardize many of citizens' human rights, including, freedom, equality, and human dignity, and their right to grow and mature, are threatened; because under the principle of legal patriarchy, the government's hands are free to criminalize, and it can, under the pretext of “exercising its discretion,” engage in broad and unnecessary criminalization that leads to the violation of citizens' rights. Ultimately, to counter these dangers, it is recommended that governments criminalize only in specialized cases and with genuine, acceptable justifications, taking greater care to consider the will of the people and international considerations. Furthermore, criminalization should be avoided in public and social spheres where people are capable of sound judgment, so that while preserving the public interest, individual rights and civil liberties are protected.
Shujsyi et al. (Wed,) studied this question.