Progressive Law Perspective: Analysis of Restorative Justice in National Criminal Code
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Progressive law demands more open-mindedness to the possibility of alternative solutions in solving legal problems. In this case, the application of restorative justice is expected to have a positive impact on justice, not only in the formal legal context, but also in a broader social context. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the changes to criminal law in Law Number 1 of 2023 (later referred to as the National Criminal Law). How the application of restorative justice in the National Criminal Law is viewed from the perspective of progressive law. The method used is descriptive-normative, by collecting normative legal data, such as laws or regulations, to identify and understand its application in practice. The results show that Restorative justice offers a more humanist approach in resolving criminal cases, which focuses not only on punishment, but also on restoring the relationship between the perpetrator, the victim, and the community. Articles in the National Criminal Law indicate the existence of restorative justice in Article 54, Article 132 Paragraph 1 Letter g, Article 82, Articles 76, 77, and 80 (Reason for Termination of Prosecution), 132 Paragraph 1 Letters d and e. Restorative Justice in the National Criminal Law with a progressive legal approach provides opportunities for non-criminal settlements (diversion), recognition of victims, restorative justice, settlement with a substantive justice approach, alternative criminal sanctions. Through the application of restorative justice, the Indonesian criminal justice system has the potential to focus more on recovery and rehabilitation, reduce the burden on the courts, and support the social reintegration of offenders, which will create a more harmonious and just society. ___ References Books with an author: Dahl, R. A. (1988). On Democracy, London: Yale University. Nakamura, R. T., & Smallwood, F. (1980). The Politics of Policy Implementation, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Varma, S. P. (1975). Teori Politik Modern, Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada. Journal articles: Abdurrachman, H., Hamzani, A. I., Sudewo, F. A., Aravik, H., & Khasanah, N. (2021). Application of Ultimum Remedium Principles in Progressive Law Perspective. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 10, 1012-1022. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2021.10.119 Afifah, H. (2024). Keadilan Restoratif dalam Dinamika Pembaruan Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Jurnal Syntax Admiration, 5(8), 3007-3015. https://doi.org/10.46799/jsa.v5i8.1392 Agusta, D., Madjid, A., & Aprilianda, N. (2025). Reforming Indonesian Criminal Law: Integrating Supervision, Punishment, and Rehabilitation for Restorative Justice. International Journal of Islamic Education, Research and Multiculturalism (IJIERM), 7(1), 54-68. https://doi.org/10.47006/ijierm.v7i1.434 Agustina, V., Tisnanta, H. S., & Muhtadi, M. (2024). Restorative Justice as an Effort to Fulfill the Constitutional Rights of Citizens: Restorative Justice sebagai Upaya Pemenuhan Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara. Jurnal Konstitusi, 21(2), 244-257. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2125 Ahyad, R. The Essence of Discontinuing Prosecution by the Prosecutor's Office to Achieve Restorative Justice. Ratio Legis Journal, 3(1), 1083-1091. http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/rlj.3.1.821-830 Bassiouni, M. C. (2006). International recognition of victims' rights. Human Rights Law Review, 6(2), 203-279. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngl009 Braithwaite, J. (1996). Restorative justice and a better future. The Dalhousie Review, 76(1), 9-32. http://hdl.handle.net/10222/63177 Carlsmith, K. M., & Darley, J. M. (2008). Psychological aspects of retributive justice. Advances in experimental social psychology, 40, 193-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00004-4 Casper, G., & Posner, R. A. (1974). A Study of the Supreme Court's Caseload. The Journal of Legal Studies, 3(2), 339-375. https://www.jstor.org/stable/724018 Crocker, D. (2016). Balancing justice goals: Restorative justice practitioners’ views. Contemporary justice review, 19(4), 462-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2016.1226815 Daly, K. (2016). What is restorative justice? Fresh answers to a vexed question. Victims & offenders, 11(1), 9-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1107797 Deneulin, S., & Townsend, N. (2007). Public goods, global public goods and the common good. International journal of social economics, 34(1/2), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290710723345 Fatmawati, E. (2021). Strategies to grow a proud attitude towards Indonesian cultural diversity. Linguistics and Culture Review, 810-820. https://doi.org/10.21744/lingcure.v5nS1.1465
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».