Mediation is one of the important and influential issues in decriminalization, which has always been the subject of attention and discussion. Despite its important role, it has not been examined as it deserves from the point of view of jurisprudence and law. Therefore, the aim of the current research is to compare the role of mediation and its types in the jurisprudence and criminal system of Iran in the direction of deconcentration in the stage of criminal prosecution. This article is theoretical and has investigated the mentioned subject by using descriptive analytical method and library. The findings indicate that in jurisprudence, the concept of mediation, which is common in law, has not been discussed in jurisprudence, and concepts such as intercession, mediation, negotiation, and compromise are most conceptually related to mediation. The use of mediation in Sharia crimes confirms that there are about two types of mediation; Mediation with the plaintiff and mediation with the ruler, the latter type of which is referred to as intercession. Based on this, one can mediate with the plaintiff in all areas related to human rights, such as the theft before complaining to the ruler, and even all punishments related to human rights, so the arguments for the prohibition of intercession in the limits do not include the limits related to human rights. But in Iran's legal system, mediation is only focused on punishable crimes of little importance.