Real Justice, Real Impact with the Prosecutors in Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prosecution service, as dominus litis, plays a pivotal role in ensuring the balance between the principle of legality and the pursuit of substantive justice within the criminal justice system. The enactment of the 2023 National Criminal Code, which formally recognizes the concept of living law, represents a significant paradigm shift by requiring criminal law enforcement to respond to social values and local community norms rather than relying solely on a rigid textual framework. This study addresses two central research questions: first, how the Criminal Procedure Code structurally constrains prosecutorial authority at the investigation and pre-prosecution stages; and second, how the formal recognition of living law generates implementation challenges, including normative conflict, discriminatory application, and legal uncertainty. Using a normative juridical research method with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, this study finds a fundamental paradox within the prosecutorial function. Although prosecutors possess formal legitimacy as controllers of criminal cases, they lack adequate legal instruments to exercise this authority substantively. The absence of clear operational standards for applying living law risks undermining legal certainty and weakening the principle of equality before the law. Comparative analysis of prosecutorial practices in Canada, the Netherlands, and Germany demonstrates alternative models that integrate restorative justice, legal pluralism, and prosecutorial supervision more effectively. This study concludes that strengthening the prosecutorial role requires not merely procedural reform of the Criminal Procedure Code, but also ethical reinforcement, professional capacity building, and judicial verification mechanisms to ensure alignment with constitution, and universal human rights principles.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".