Punishment of Criminals of Trafficking in Persons: Legal Perspective on International Guidelines and Indonesian Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".