This editor’s note interrogates a critical tension in Iran’s contemporary legal landscape: the erosion of the ‘rule of law’ in favor of what the author terms ‘criminal governance’. This latter mode of governance is characterized by a legislative trend of “penal inflation” or overcriminalization, particularly in domains governing public morality, lifestyle choices, and national security. The author argues that this approach fundamentally contravenes the principle of criminal law as a measure of last resort (ultima ratio). It disregards foundational tenets of legal philosophy, such as the Harm Principle, and overlooks parallel principles within Islamic jurisprudence—notably the rule of lā ḍarar (no harm)—as well as constitutional guarantees of individual autonomy and human dignity. Through an analysis of recent legislative initiatives, from the securitization of cultural matters like the hijab to the enactment of vague and overbroad national security offenses, the author demonstrates how criminal law is being instrumentalized not to protect society from tangible harm, but to enforce ideological conformity and suppress social pluralism. This legislative drift, he contends, yields severe consequences: it diminishes public trust, fosters legal cynicism, overburdens the judiciary, and ultimately transforms law from a reflection of collective reason into an arbitrary tool of power. This note concludes with a call for a fundamental recommitment to principled legislative practice, urging a return to the core tenets of necessity, proportionality, and legal certainty. It advocates for the strategic use of non-penal alternatives and warns that a system reliant on punitive governance over a legitimate, rights-respecting rule of law is destined to produce social fragmentation and undermine its own stability.