Restorative Justice dalam Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan: \nPerspektif Hukum Pidana Indonesia \ndan Hukum Pidana Islam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The completion of the homicide in Indonesia did’nt have \neffectiveness, both in order to give a deterrent effect and the creation of \nthe security and peace in society. Conventional punishment process, as \napplicable in Indonesia, didn’t give space to the parties (the victim, \noffender, and community ) involved to participate actively in solving \ntheir problems. Position of the State was too dominant, thus denying the \npeople's participation in law enforcement. Imprisonment system adopted \nin Indonesian criminal law also didn’t provide a comprehensive solution. \nRetributive justice approach adopted by the Indonesian criminal law \nneeds to be reformed and replaced with a restorative justice. Restoration \nis an alternative approach to solve crime that emphasized on recovery \nconflicts and rebulid balances in society. This approach has been also \napplied in many countries, both of which adopted the system of criminal \nlaw and civil law (France, Germany, the Netherlands), or apply the \ncommon law system of criminal law (United States, Canada, Australia). \nThis approach is already practiced in Islamic criminal law, namely the law \nof qisas. In completion of murder, procedure of Qisas involving all \nparties, namely the victim, offender and community. Family of victim \nhave the right to determine the punishment, whether qisas (killed), or \ndiyat (pay a fine), or give forgiveness to the offender . The existence of \nthree alternative penalties and engagement of the litigants shows that \nIslamic criminal law applying restorative justice approach. Position of \nSultan (the State) is a mediator as well as a supervisor in law \nenforcement. Completion of this approach is able to resolve crimes with \nrebuilding relations after the criminal act. \nAbstrak: Penyelesaian tindak pidana pembunuhan di Indonesia tidak \nmemiliki efektifitas bagi upaya pemberian efek jera dan penciptaan \nkeamananan dan ketenteraman dalam masyarakat. Proses pemidanaan \nkonvensional, sebagaimana yang berlaku di Indonesia, tidak memberikan \nruang kepada pihak yang terlibat, yaitu korban dan pelaku untuk \nberpartisipasi aktif dalam penyelesaian masalah mereka. Negara terlalu \nmendominasi dalam prosedur penegakan hukum pidana, sehingga \nmenafikan partisipasi aktif masyarakat dalam penegakan hukum. Sistem \npemenjaraan yang dianut dalam hukum pidana Indonesia juga tidak \nmemberikan solusi yang komprehensif dalam penegakan hukum. Pendekatan retributive justice yang dianut oleh hukum pidana Indonesia \nperlu direformasi dan digantikan dengan restorative justice. Pendekatan \nrestorasi adalah suatu alternatif penyelesaian masalah pidana dengan \npenekanan pada pemulihan masalah/konflik dan pengembalian \nkeseimbangan dalam masyarakat. Pendekatan ini juga telah diterapkan di \nberbagai negara, baik yang menganut sistem hukum pidana civil law \n(Perancis, Jerman, Belanda), maupun yang menerapkan sistem hukum \npidana common law (Amerika Serikat, Kanada, Australia). Pendekatan \nini sudah dipraktikkan dalam hukum pidana Islam, yaitu dalam hukum \nqisas. Qisas adalah hukum yang berlaku dalam tindak pidana \npembunuhan. Dalam penerapannya melibatkan semua pihak, yaitu \nkorban, pelaku, dan masyarakat. Keluarga korban memiliki hak untuk \nmenentukan hukuman, apakah qisas (dibunuh), atau diyat (membayar \ndenda), atau memaafkan. Adanya tiga alternatif hukuman dan \nketerlibatan pihak pihak yang berperkara menunjukkan bahwa hukum \npidana Islam menerapkan pendekatan restorative justice. Posisi sultan \nadalah sebagai mediator sekaligus pengawas bagi penegakan hukum qisas \ntersebut. Penyelesaian dengan pendekatan ini mampu menyelesaikan \nkejahatan dengan membangun kembali hubungan setelah terjadi tindak \npidana. \nKata Kunci: restorative justice, pembunuhan, efektifitas hukuman, penegakan \nhukum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.012 |
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".