The Threat of Judicial Mafia in Indonesia in Discrediting the Principle of the Rule of Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to critically analyze law enforcement against the mafia of the court. The purpose is to improve the quality of legal institutions and improve the legal structure dimension. The objective is to obtain the quality of court institution as closely related to the apparatus's quality and integrity and the integrity of the apparatus to be ensured since the recruitment process also maintains the coaching process. Using the socio-legal approach, the analysis was directed to the practice of mafia threats to the principle of independence and the court's impartiality while threatening the existence of the rule of law. The results showed that the mafia of court arises because of the collusion among the elements of the court's stakeholders, the destruction of the stakeholders that led to the emergence of the various mafia of court practices in Indonesia. The main findings of this study are that the court, as the last bastion of justice and law enforcement, is undoubtedly expected to be independent and impartial following the demands of the rule of law. As a practical implication, the court institution cannot be independent and impartial if there is still a network of crimes that undermine the court system. Courts that only give justice to those who are strong and have access will cultivate what is feared by some legal experts that law is only a tool as instrumentalism for those who have access and power. This is where the threat to the principle of the rule of law lies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".