This study addresses a significant gap in Iran’s criminal justice system concerning women who commit crimes under conditions of coercion and unequal power dynamics within marriage. "Marital coercion" refers to situations in which a woman is forced, through threats, intimidation, violence, or sustained psychological manipulation by her husband, to engage in unlawful acts. While many legal systems worldwide recognize this form of coercion—either as an independent defense or within broader doctrines of duress, compulsion, or diminished responsibility—Iranian criminal law lacks an explicit provision for it. The only relevant legal framework is the general concept of duress, which imposes strict evidentiary requirements and fails to account for the gendered realities of marital power dynamics. As a result, the experiences of women coerced by their husbands rarely find adequate representation in judicial decisions.
Using a qualitative methodology, this research explores how Iranian judges interpret the criminal responsibility of women who commit crimes under marital coercion. Data were collected through in-depth interviews and document analysis, involving 21 female offenders or women at risk of offending, as well as judges from Tehran and Zanjan. Additionally, 10 criminal case files involving female defendants were reviewed. Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed judicial reasoning patterns, operational definitions of coercion, and judges' sensitivity (or lack thereof) to gendered dynamics within marital relationships.
Findings show that Iran’s criminal justice system rarely acknowledges the structural and relational contexts that lead women to commit crimes under coercion. Most judges view marital relationships as inherently non-coercive and interpret duress narrowly, focusing solely on physical threats of immediate harm. They generally do not recognize threats like divorce, economic dependence, social stigma, child custody, or psychological control as sufficiently serious to negate criminal responsibility. This perspective overlooks the lived experiences of women trapped in long-term, subtle, but powerful mechanisms of control that do not align with the male-centered, incident-based legal definition of duress.
A smaller group of judges acknowledges that coercion within marriage may drive women toward criminal behavior. However, they argue that the absence of explicit legal recognition of marital coercion prevents them from mitigating or eliminating criminal liability. These judges express that, without legislative backing, they cannot rely on gender-sensitive interpretations, even when they believe the woman had little or no autonomy in committing the offense. The lack of a clear legal provision forces them to treat coerced women in the same way as fully autonomous offenders.
A third, more pragmatic group of judges adopts a flexible approach. Although they cannot formally accept "marital coercion" as a legal defense, they use existing tools like mitigation, suspension, or postponement of punishment to issue fairer judgments in cases where a woman’s involvement in crime is clearly shaped by her husband’s coercive control. These judges exercise contextual interpretation, judicial discretion, and a recognition of the woman’s social, psychological, and economic vulnerability. This approach implicitly acknowledges the relevance of gender and power dynamics, even without explicit statutory guidance.
The women interviewed in this study often described experiences of physical abuse, emotional manipulation, economic control, threats to their children, and fear of social stigma—factors that made refusing their husbands’ demands seem impossible. Many had attempted to seek help from law enforcement or judicial authorities, only to have their complaints dismissed as private marital disputes. The failure of authorities to intervene in cases of domestic violence effectively silences women and reinforces the cycle of coercion. When these women later face criminal charges, their earlier victimization is rarely acknowledged, further marginalizing them within the legal system.
Analysis of case files reveals that the law’s gender-neutral approach to duress fails to account for the specific forms of coercion that women commonly face in patriarchal societies. Threats such as divorce, loss of custody, social humiliation, or homelessness may be legally dismissed as insignificant, but for many women, these threats carry significant psychological weight. Iranian courts often demand evidence of imminent physical harm, disregarding the cumulative nature of coercive control and its gradual erosion of a woman’s agency.
Comparative legal analysis shows that jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Hong Kong, and Scotland have increasingly recognized coercive control and marital duress as grounds for reduced or eliminated criminal responsibility. Doctrines such as the "battered woman syndrome" or diminished responsibility help courts contextualize women's behavior within abusive relationships. In contrast, Iranian law lacks any doctrinal or procedural mechanism to integrate these realities into judicial decision-making.
The study concludes that the failure to recognize marital coercion in Iranian criminal law results in significant injustices for women who commit crimes under conditions of domination, fear, and dependency. The absence of a gender-sensitive legal framework misidentifies victims as perpetrators and disregards the structural inequalities that shape women’s paths to crime. The research recommends that a doctrine of marital coercion, or at least the allowance for diminished responsibility in coerced cases, would enhance fairness in Iran’s criminal justice system. Until legislative reform occurs, judges can mitigate punishment by applying broader interpretations of existing legal concepts and exercising their discretionary powers.
The findings underscore an urgent need for legal reform and judicial training to incorporate gender-sensitive perspectives into criminal adjudication. Recognizing marital coercion would promote justice for women and support broader societal efforts to combat domestic violence, reduce coercive control, and protect vulnerable individuals within intimate relationships.