Death Penalty and Human Rights in Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the research was to investigate whether the applicable death penalty in the Criminal Laws of Republic of Indonesia violates the human rights or not. To achieve the objectives of the research, both legal research and social-legal research method were used. Then, the respondents of the research were the representative supreme courts, official commissions, law experts, religious leaders and non-governmental organization. Depth interview and document study were chosen as data sources of the research, then, interview guidelines, note-taking, and voice recorder were used to be the instruments of the research. Death penalty is not contradictory with human rights as stated in Presidential Regulation No 2 of 1964 discussing the death penalty in Indonesia is applicable for those who commit serious crimes, namely; murder, drug possession, terrorist, and corruption. It is also corresponding to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 7 Verse (2) – (6), which is stated that death penalty must be performed in proper methodology without both imprisonment for years and mental suffering. Death penalty is legally stated in Indonesia law that it is not recognized as cruel action in which the death penalty have never been resulting both physical and psychological pain as well as stated in Covenant and Political Right.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".