The Purposivism school of interpretation, as one of the important schools in legal interpretation, focuses on the "objectives and purposes of the legislator" to interpret criminal laws. This research analyzes the position, foundations, types of objectives in Purposivism, the challenges of this school, and ultimately, its place in the Iranian criminal justice system. The main objective of this research is to explain the role and function of Purposivism in the flexibility and adaptation of criminal laws to social developments, as well as to examine the theoretical and practical obstacles it faces. This study was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method, with data collected from library sources, including legal texts, advisory opinions, and judicial rulings. The findings of the research indicate that although this school has been welcomed and utilized in Iranian legal doctrine and judicial practice, such as in the advisory opinions of the General Directorate of Legal Affairs of the Judiciary and the uniform precedents of the Supreme Court, it faces fundamental challenges such as ambiguity in identifying the purpose, the risk of subjectivism, and potential conflict with the principle of legality of crimes and punishments and the principle of separation of powers. Consequently, this research suggests that in order to make greater use of the advantages of this school, it is essential to develop clear criteria and standards for identifying the objectives of the legislator to prevent arbitrary and discretionary interpretations and to ensure and strengthen the application of teleology in the Iranian legal system.