Scope and Foundations of Prosecutorial Intervention in the Realization of Consensual Justice in Iranian and U.S. Criminal Proceedings

Abstract

The transition from the classical, trial-centered model of criminal procedure toward consensual justice represents a pragmatic response to the crisis of case backlogs, protracted proceedings, and the need to individualize criminal justice responses. In this context, the prosecution service, as the principal authority responsible for directing the pretrial stage of criminal proceedings, plays a pivotal role in guiding, concluding, and implementing consensual mechanisms. Using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, this study examines the scope, foundations, and effects of prosecutorial intervention in the realization of consensual justice within the criminal justice systems of Iran and the United States. The findings indicate that, in the U.S. criminal justice system, reliance on the principle of broad prosecutorial discretion and the adversarial structure grants prosecutors extensive authority through mechanisms such as plea bargaining and diversion programs. Although this framework has enhanced procedural efficiency and expedited case resolution, it has also generated fundamental challenges to fair trial guarantees by weakening public adjudication, creating structural coercion, and marginalizing the interests of victims. By contrast, Iranian criminal policy, influenced by the principle of legality of prosecution and Islamic jurisprudential norms, has adopted a restrictive and cautious approach, limiting prosecutorial powers through mechanisms such as suspension of prosecution, case dismissal and filing, and mediation primarily to minor and intermediate-level offenses. While this approach constrains the risk of arbitrary prosecutorial authority, the absence of transparent procedural guidelines has prevented these mechanisms from fully realizing their rehabilitative potential. The present study demonstrates that the legitimacy of prosecutorial intervention in both systems is contingent upon compliance with normative safeguards, including verification of the defendant’s voluntary and informed consent, prohibition of intimidating or coercive conduct, assurance of effective access to defense counsel, and substantive judicial review by an impartial court. Ultimately, the study proposes the adoption of formal guidelines governing prosecutorial discretion, the targeted development of treatment-oriented consensual mechanisms, and the strengthening of safeguards for victim compensation as a desirable legislative model for Iranian law.