Restorative Justice in Indonesian Law on Juvenile Criminal Justice System and Its Implications for Social Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study was motivated by Indonesian Law on Juvenile Criminal Justice System, which is now starting to take effect based on the restorative justice paradigm. The study aims to analyze the restorative justice in the juvenile system as the settlement of criminal cases together with related parties in order to find a fair settlement by emphasizing restoration to its original state. By using the socio-legal approach, the results recommend that to achieve this restorative justice, efforts are made to diversify or transfer the settlement of juvenile cases from the criminal justice process to the non-criminal court process. It is in this diversion effort that it has an impact on social work. If previously social workers had a small role towards children in conflict with the law (ABH), now their role is bigger. So that it takes an increase in quality and quantity. The results would imply that increasing both quality and quantity must be followed by efforts such as education and training. Practical implications also denote the quality of social welfare service institutions be strengthened because this institution will accommodate ABH when the diversion effort is agreed upon by the parties.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".