Punishing Environmental Offenses Without Guilty Mind: Regulatory Framework and Judicial Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the legal considerations and the scope of application of criminal liability without guilty mind in environmental offenses in Indonesia. Under the existing Environmental Law, liability without fault has been applicable exclusively in civil cases. This paper combines literature and induction research methods. The first method dives into the legal provision in Environmental Law containing the formulation of the offenses, while the induction method refers to the analysis on judicial decisions in the application of liability without fault. The findings of the study show that most of the prohibited offenses in environmental legislation deal with the malum prohibitum crime tied to the violation of a permit. The mental element is not explicitly stated in these offenses. Hence, the culpability of the defendant is presumed to be displayed in the evidence of the prohibited conduct. Waste or emissions discharged into the environmental media without authorisation is prohibited and pertaining the potential to harm the environment. These offenses are included as formal offenses by removing the element of culpability in the structure of the offense. It is also sufficient for the court to rule that the defendants have committed the prohibited conduct as the basis for imposing criminal sanction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".