Jurisprudential and Legal Foundations and the Principles of Criminalization of Threat in Iran's Penal Laws

The criminalization of citizens' behavior is considered an exception to the norm and stands in contrast with fundamental principles such as the presumption of innocence and the principle of permissibility. The significance of this issue becomes particularly evident when criminalization both restricts the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens and simultaneously creates opportunities for the authoritarianism of state powers. This concern is especially pronounced in crimes such as threats, which do not entail any tangible, actual harm to the recipients. However, a precise understanding of this matter necessitates careful examination of the jurisprudential and legal foundations as well as the principles governing the criminalization of threats. The most important legal foundations for the criminalization of threats include the harm principle, legal paternalism, and legal moralism. In this study, conducted using a descriptive-analytical method, it is established that although there is no explicit statement in the Imami jurisprudence regarding the foundations and principles of the criminalization of threats, the act of threatening can nonetheless be deemed impermissible when aligned with rules such as the prohibition of unjust intimidation, the doctrine of preparatory acts to unlawful conduct, and the concept of presumed guilt (tajarri).