Restorative Justice as a Resolution for the Crime of Rape with Child Perpetrators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A child who commits a criminal act can be called a child in conflict with the law. One of the crimes committed by children was rape, which involved elementary and junior high school children in Probolinggo; they reportedly raped a high school student until they became pregnant. Sexual crimes against children occur in Southeast Asian countries, such as the Philippines, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Indonesia. The purpose of this study was to review restorative justice as an effort to resolve the criminal act of rape with child perpetrators. The research method used is normative juridical research, with the approach of laws and concepts and collecting primary legal material in the form of existing cases. This study found that the restorative justice process in juvenile crime is essential because there are essential things to focus on the regulation that requires the active role of the community, perpetrators, and victims of crime, including the affected community, in the restorative justice process. A fundamental balancing approach must also be taken, namely, first, imposing sanctions based on responsibility for recovering victims' losses as a consequence of criminal acts; second, rehabilitation and reintegration of actors; and third, strengthening community safety and security systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".