The Bangkok Rules, through their emphasis on non-custodial measures, women’s pathways into the criminal justice system, caregiving responsibilities, treatment needs, and children’s interests, provide a normative framework for evaluating penal policy toward women offenders. Using legal analysis and a normative-critical approach, this study examines the capacities of Iranian law in light of Rule 1 and Rules 57–64 of the Bangkok Rules. The findings indicate that the Islamic Penal Code and related regulations provide several mechanisms for considering women offenders’ individual, family, treatment, and caregiving circumstances, including individualized sentencing, alternatives to imprisonment, deferred sentencing, suspension, personality files, semi-liberty, electronic monitoring, and conditional release. Nevertheless, fragmented regulation, limited social assessment, unclear standards for coercive control and caregiving responsibilities, the absence of a general duty to consider and justify the rejection of non-custodial options, and inadequate implementation services prevent these capacities from forming a coherent policy. The study distinguishes relevant factors across three levels—criminal responsibility, mitigation, and individualization—and proposes a two-phase, nine-step framework for judicial decision-making. It concludes that Iranian law demonstrates partial but incomplete alignment with the Bangkok Rules. Although these Rules do not independently create judicial powers in Iranian law, they can serve as a normative benchmark for interpreting existing legal capacities, reducing stereotypical decision-making, and strengthening the reasoned and reviewable character of penal responses toward women offenders.