MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165935833 · doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2021.10.79

Punishment of Criminals of Trafficking in Persons: Legal Perspective on International Guidelines and Indonesian Practices

2021· article· en· W3165935833 on OpenAlex
Farhana Farhana

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Criminology and Sociology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndonesian Legal and Regulatory Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminologyIndonesianPunishment (psychology)OriginalityPolitical scienceEconomic JusticeLawCriminal justiceConventionInternational communitySociologyPsychologyPoliticsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The background of this study is that penalization is not only oriented towards the perpetrators of crimes of trafficking in persons but also oriented to the interests of victims and the community so that criminal justice aims to integrally protect various interests. The study aims to identify the punishment of criminals of trafficking in persons based on the interests of victims in Indonesian court practices as outlined by some regulations and the international community as outlined by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC). Considering that the study is a transnational crime, the point of view used in this study is clear to analyse the perspective of the national community and the ‎international community. Hence, the standard ‎measuring instrument used the perspective of international justice and its practical implementation by the Indonesian court. By using the library research method, the results showed that trafficking crimes are considered serious crimes by the international community. In regulating human trafficking, every country has laws regarding trafficking crimes by the applicable legal system. The theoretical contribution of this study is that each human trafficking crime case has different characteristics due to the condition of the perpetrator, the victim, the situation when the trafficking crime was committed. Therefore, as a practical contribution, the Indonesian court considers these factors which can be considered as a weighting or a reduction in sentence. The problem is incriminating and mitigating factors that must be considered in imposing penalties against traffickers. The study offers originality in investigating the factors which are burdensome and mitigate in imposing crimes against traffickers. The findings underline the principle of criminalization as the basis for imposing penalties on perpetrators of trafficking in persons by taking into account the factors of weighting and mitigation of punishment, in which the proportional principle takes precedence in addition to the other principles.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.305 · 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