Protection of Persons with Disabilities in a Comparative Legal Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Legal protection for persons with disabilities in the criminal justice system is a fundamental aspect of human rights-based legal development. This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the forms of legal protection for persons with disabilities in Indonesia, Canada, and Germany. Through a normative legal approach and literature review, this study found that although Indonesia has ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and issued national regulations such as Law No. 8 of 2016, its implementation still faces various structural and cultural obstacles. Meanwhile, Canada has established a special court system (mental health courts) based on the principle of restorative justice, and Germany applies an individual justice approach that emphasizes a comprehensive assessment of the legal capacity of defendants. The results of the study show that the success of legal protection for persons with disabilities depends heavily on three key elements: a progressive legal framework, inclusive institutional support, and the capacity of law enforcement officials. Indonesia needs to immediately undertake technical and structural reforms to ensure substantive justice for persons with disabilities in all stages of the criminal justice process.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".