This study explains and evaluates Iran’s criminal policy toward construction violations with the aim of preserving urban order and safety and preventing unauthorized building. The core question is to delineate the justified scope of criminalization and to identify an optimal mix of penal responses and preventive measures, consistent with justice and proportionality. Using a descriptive–analytical method based on documentary sources, the assessment framework draws on contemporary criminology and three criteria: “necessity,” “justice,” and “balance of interests.” The findings indicate that criminalization is warranted when a violation poses a serious risk to public interests, private rights, or structural safety; accordingly, distinguishing between low-risk and high-risk violations is essential for proportional responses. Monetary penalties alone lack sufficient deterrent effect and should be complemented by stop-work orders, disgorgement of illicit gains, and, where necessary, demolition of the structure. Strengthening administrative oversight, enhancing procedural transparency, and employing situational prevention tools increase the effectiveness of penal responses. Justice also requires that criminal rules align with moral and social norms and be enforced in proportion to the severity of risk. In sum, combining risk-based minimal criminalization with proportionate sanctions and preventive mechanisms offers an effective path to controlling construction violations and maintaining sustainable urban order.
Keywords: criminal policy; construction violations; minimal criminalization; criminal justice, urban order and safety.