Diversion In Juvenile Criminal Cases(Evidence Based Practise)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
President of the Republic of Indonesia enacted Law No. 11 of 2012 in July 30, 2012. The law regulates about Juvenile Criminal Justice System and is an amendment of Law No. 3 of 1997. Law No. 3 of 1997 is seen irrelevant with the current legal developments and needs of the society, because the law did not provide a comprehensive child protection before the law, hence must be amended with the new law. However, Law No. 11 of 2012 only began to be implemented in July 2014, in accord to article 108. There a number of new issues regulated in this Law, for instance: the term “naughty children” is revised to “children with legal conflict”. Another change is the minimum age of children to be the object of juvenile criminal justice system, from 8 years old to 12 years old, and below 18 years old of age. Restorative justice principle is also regulated in the new law (article 1 point 6). This principle provides the definition of case finalization, whereby the process to finalize a case must include the perpetrator, the victim, the family of the perpetrator and the family of the victim, and other related parties, to look for a fair solution and to restore the previous condition, and not a mean of revenge. In other words, this Law put more emphasis on seeking of solution alternatives outside of criminal justice system, meaning that the Law is giving hope that the punishment of a criminal act in a form of prison time will only be a last resort.
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 | 0.015 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".