MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ANALISIS KONSEP RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MELALUI SISTEM DIVERSI DALAM SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA ANAK DI INDONESIA

2013· article· id· W2736000089 on OpenAlexaff
Yutirsa Yunus

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Rechts Vinding Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional · 2013
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Social Justice Studies
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestorative justicePolitical scienceEconomic JusticeHumanitiesSociologyLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perubahan fundamental sejak diberlakukan Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2012 tentang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak adalah digunakannya pendekatan restorative justice melalui sistem diversi. Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui konsep umum restorative justice bagi anak dan menganalisis konsep restorative justice melalui sistem diversi dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2012. Dengan menggunakan teknik pengumpulan data melalui metode penelitian kepustakaan dan teknik pengolahan data melalui metode content analysis dapat disimpulkan bahwa konsep restorative justice dipandang baik untuk diterapkan dalam sistem peradilan pidana anak. Salah satu variasi restorative justice yakni sistem diversi. Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2012 cukup mengakomodir konsep restorative justice melalui sistem diversi dengan diaturnya mengenai (a) kewajiban untuk mendahulukan penyelesaian perkara pidana anak melalui proses diversi; (b) kewajiban setiap aparat penegak hukum untuk mengupayakan diversi pada setiap tingkatan pemeriksaan; dan (c) keberadaan pekerja sosial profesional, tenaga kesejahteraan sosial, serta pembimbing kemasyarakatan. Dari kesimpulan tersebut direkomendasikan perlunya disusun peraturan teknis mengenai pedoman pelaksanaan proses diversi; pembangunan infrastruktur; dan peningkatan kapasitas dan kualitas aparat penegak hukum agar diversi terlaksana sesuai restorative justice . Indonesia began enacting Law Number 11 of 2012 on the Children Criminal Justice. The fundamental changes is the utilized of restorative justice through diversion system. This study aims to determine the concept of restorative justice and analyze the concept of restorative justice through diversion. The study utilized library research and content analysis methods. This study concludes that The Law Number 11 of 2012 sufficiently accommodates the concept of restorative justice through diversion regarding the arrangement of (a) obligation to prioritize the completion of the criminal case of children through diversion; (b) obligation of law enforcement officers to seek diversion at every level of examination, and (c) existence of professional social workers, social welfare workers, and community mentors. This study recommends the making of regulation as a technical guidelines; establishing infrastructure; and capacity building in order to accomplished the diversion in accordance with restorative justice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Rechts Vinding Media Pembinaan Hukum NasionalSame topicLegal and Social Justice StudiesFrench-language works237,207