Symbolic Restorative Justice in the Courtroom: Navigating the Intersection of Justice and Child Welfare in Indonesian Juvenile Court Decisions

Background: The juvenile criminal justice system has evolved to incorporate restorative justice (RJ) practices, which emphasize repairing harm and rehabilitating offenders through dialogue and reconciliation. The implementation of RJ in juvenile justice systems aims to provide an alternative to punitive measures and encourage offenders to take responsibility for their actions while addressing the needs of victims and communities. Despite its promise, the effectiveness of RJ in reducing recidivism and promoting positive outcomes for juvenile offenders remains underexplored. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of restorative justice practices in the juvenile criminal justice system, focusing on recidivism rates, victim satisfaction, and the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. The research seeks to assess whether RJ methods contribute to better long-term outcomes compared to traditional punitive approaches. Method: A mixed-methods approach was employed, combining quantitative analysis of recidivism rates and qualitative interviews with juvenile offenders, victims, and justice system professionals involved in RJ programs. Results: The findings show that restorative justice significantly reduces recidivism rates and improves victim satisfaction. Juvenile offenders reported feeling more accountable for their actions, and communities experienced a greater sense of justice and restoration. Conclusion: Restorative justice practices prove to be effective in the juvenile criminal justice system, offering promising alternatives to traditional punitive methods. Policymakers should consider expanding RJ programs to further enhance rehabilitation and community healing.

Restorative Justice: Some Facts and History

The increasing number of juveniles encountering the legal system in Indonesia underscores the need for a more effective approach within the juvenile criminal justice system (SPPA). Restorative Justice (RJ) has been adopted as an alternative to the conventional punitive-oriented judicial system. However, the implementation of RJ in Indonesia continues to face several challenges, including a lack of understanding among law enforcement officers, limited rehabilitation facilities, and minimal victim participation in the resolution process. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of RJ in resolving juvenile criminal offenses in Indonesia while identifying the challenges and strategies for improving its implementation. The research employs a normative and empirical legal approach, utilizing case studies of juvenile offenses resolved through RJ. Data is collected through interviews with law enforcement officials, victims, and offenders, as well as an analysis of relevant regulations, such as Law No. 11 of 2012 on the Juvenile Criminal Justice System. Findings reveal that over the past five years, the average success rate of RJ in resolving juvenile cases in Indonesia has reached 60%, with a 45% reduction in recidivism rates compared to the formal judicial system. However, obstacles such as inadequate legal training for law enforcement personnel and limited rehabilitation facilities remain significant challenges in RJ implementation. This study contributes to policy reform discussions on juvenile justice in Indonesia by recommending capacity-building initiatives for legal practitioners and strengthening victim engagement mechanisms in the RJ process. Additionally, it highlights the need for increased investment in rehabilitation infrastructure and further research into the application of RJ in addressing the rising cases of cyber-related offenses among juveniles

The purpose of this study is to determine the role of the prosecutor against recidivist child offenders in Decision Number 23/Pid.Sus-Anak/2024/PN Smg. The research method uses an empirical and sociological juridical approach that examines the effectiveness of the application of law through analysis of regulations, social values, and the practice of handling children's cases. The results of the study explain that the role of prosecutors in the juvenile criminal justice system against recidivist child offenders in the Semarang District Attorney's Office is very important and takes place thoroughly from the investigation stage to prosecution. Prosecutors not only carry out the prosecution function, but also actively examine the completeness of case files, evaluate the results of the litmas from Bapas, and consider psychological, social factors, and the potential for child recidivism. Prosecution is carried out proportionally with a restorative and rehabilitative justice approach, paying attention to the principle of the best interest of the child, and applying disparity in charges between recidivist and non-recidivist child offenders. Obstacles in the form of time constraints and lack of family support are challenges, but case resolution is still pursued quickly, fairly, and in favor of the protection and social recovery of children. These findings indicate the urgency of improving the handling of recidivist child offenders, which requires a more comprehensive and adaptive update of the SPPA Law, as well as the issuance of prosecutor regulations as official guidelines based on restorative justice and the principle of the best interests of the child.

The settlement of criminal cases involving juveniles’against the law (ABH) through the implementation of diversion is carried out using a restorative justice approach, requiring the consent of the victim and/or the victim's child and the child's willingness. Thus, it is understood that the settlement of the ABH case cannot always be diversified. The problem in this study, regarding the implementation of restorative justice in Act Number 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System, regarding the concept of restorative justice as an effort to provide protection for juveniles’against the law, also the obstacles and solutions in the implementation of restorative justice. This research is a normative juridical research supported by empirical research, by conducting research in law enforcement agencies/institutes in the Medan District Court's jurisdiction, then the implementation of restorative justice in Medan District Jurisdiction area. This research is a descriptive analysis, using primary and secondary sources. Analysis of the data used in this research is qualitative data analysis. The concept of restorative justice in the Juvenile Criminal Justice System (SPPA) Law, is implemented through the application of diversification at every level of the juvenile criminal justice process. Diversion is a distraction settlement of cases of children dealing with the law from the formal process (the judicial process) to the informal process, by means of deliberation and consensus which prioritizes restorative justice. Restorative justice will provide protection for ABH, because through the implementation of diversion, the children will be kept away from the formal justice process which is possible to neglect children's rights and cause trauma to the children. The obstacle in implementing restorative justice in the jurisdiction of the Medan District Court is the lack of human resources for law enforcement officials. Supporting facilities and infrastructures are still very minimum. And there is still a lack of socialization to the society.

Restorative justice concept may refer to an alternative process for solving disputes including criminal law violation has been well known in Indonesia. The Act Number 11, 2012 on Juvenile Justice System has acknowledged restorative justice approach as a part of criminal justice system in dealing with a child in conflict with the law. It has become an essential provision in the Act as it provides option for law enforcers to avoid punishing juvenile offenders through traditional criminal approach. This research aims to examine restorative justice for juvenile offenders in Indonesia based on the Juvenile Justice System Act Number 11, 2012 as a form of alternative dispute resolution for juvenile crimes and other related laws and to provide a brief of the implementation of restorative justice in Indonesia that is integrally enforced in Indonesian criminal justice system dealing with a child in conflict with the law. It divides the discussion into two parts restorative justice in the juvenile justice system act 2012 and the implementation of restorative juvenile justice in Indonesia. In order to response to these research aims, this paper employs doctrinal legal research.

One form of legal protection for children is to realize the fulfillment of the rights and obligations of the child itself. Especially for children in conflict with the law, their problem solving process requires special attention. This study aims to analyze the application of diversion in restorative justice for children who are in conflict with the law in the juvenile criminal justice system. The type of research conducted is descriptive research with the type of normative legal research related to the application of diversion in restorative justice in the criminal justice system. The results showed that the application of diversion in restorative justice in the system of applying diversion to children in conflict with the law in the juvenile justice system, is the implementation of a system in restorative justice to provide justice and legal protection to children in conflict with the law without ignoring the child's criminal responsibility. Diversion is not a peaceful effort between children in conflict with the law and the victim or his family, but a form of punishment for children in conflict with the law in an informal way. The recommendation in this study is that law enforcement officers in carrying out their duties of investigating, prosecuting, examining and determining case decisions at court trials should prioritize the application of diversion as an alternative to the application of imprisonment. Massive socialization of diversion is needed to the community.

Restorative juvenile justice

Indonesia’s juvenile criminal justice system has embraced diversion and restorative justice as foundational principles following the enactment of Law No. 11 of 2012 on the Juvenile Criminal Justice System. This study critically examines the legal frameworks underpinning these principles, explores the policy gaps, and evaluates the implementation challenges that have emerged in practice. Employing a socio-legal qualitative methodology, this paper reviews statutory provisions, policy documents, and empirical research findings on diversion and restorative justice in Indonesia. The results reveal that while Indonesia’s legal reforms align with international standards on juvenile justice, significant inconsistencies persist in the practical application of diversion policies. Key barriers include uneven regional implementation, lack of standardized procedures, insufficient training for law enforcement, and societal resistance rooted in a punitive legal culture. The discussion offers a comprehensive analysis of these challenges and suggests strategic pathways to strengthen the restorative justice framework. The paper concludes by recommending policy reforms that incorporate local wisdom, enhance institutional capacity, and promote community involvement to ensure sustainable and effective juvenile justice practices in Indonesia.

Children’s rights are specifically different from adult human rights. In all circumstances the rights of children must take precedence over other interests, namely the existence of legal protection for them and the existence of special protection aimed at children who violate the law. Act No.11 of 2012 on the Juvenile Criminal Justice System requires restorative justice efforts as a form of protection for children, which emphasizes restoring the harm caused or incurred by criminal acts. Restorative justice has long been practiced in indigenous community of Indonesia, i.e. where a criminal act occurs by its citizens (including juvenile delinquency), the dispute settlement is conducted within the indigenous community internally without involving the State apparatus. The formulation of the problem is, firstly, how is the policy of restorative justice formulation of juvenile criminal justice system in handling the juvenile with conflict of law, secondly how is implementation of restorative justice of juvenile justice system by customary court in Makassar. The results of the study indicate that customary court in Makassar has legal and cultural characteristics, moral values that can solve problems by deliberation, involving various parties in litigation such as in restorative justice mechanism in the juvenile criminal justice system.

Diversion and restorative justice in the context of juvenile justice reforms in Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam Diversion is an important vehicle for delivering an alternative model of youth justice, one that is, hopefully, grounded in principles of children’s rights and restorative justice. Several Asia-Pacific countries, often with international assistance, have sought to develop alternative processes and programmes to which children in conflict with the law can be diverted to. In some instances, these have included restorative justice programmes. This article provides an overview of the implementation of a restorative justice approach, as a youth justice diversion measure, in four South-East Asian countries: Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam. It describes juvenile justice reforms in these countries, particularly as they relate to the implementation of diversion and restorative justice and reflects on the factors that may have affected the success of these reforms. Every one of these countries has achieved a measure of success in implementing diversion and restorative justice, although restorative justice has occupied a different place in these reforms. The article offers a general overview of key challenges and notable successes encountered during that process, as well as an opportunity to consider the role of tradition, culture and public expectations in the implementation of restorative justice principles in the context of juvenile justice.

Restorative justice is a movement with traction. People are excited by it. They are volunteering in growing numbers to make it happen. Some people are even getting paid to do it, especially in schools, and usually through nonprofits like Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth, Community Works, and the Insight Prison Project (all discussed in this issue). Marilyn Armour’s article (page 25) sums up the progress so far.Its practitioners say the movement’s innovative practices have immediate benefits and radical long-term potential.There is hope, first, that it will keep young people and especially young people of color out of the criminal justice system, out of the school-to-prison pipeline. Once that is well under way, many believe that other visions will appear possible, all the way to the end of prisons as we know them and a reconception of the entire legal system (see Peter Gabel’s piece on page 18). Many hope this movement can also provide new ways of responding both to conflicts in general (Kay Pranis, page 33) and to the inherited oppressive structures of race and class (see Fania Davis’s piece on page 30, Denise Breton’s on page 45).Restorative justice may be poised for a breakthrough into public awareness. It would be a boon for budget-cutting politicians and taxpayers if only the public could buy into it. For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area it costs around $50,000 to run a juvenile offender through the justice system, not counting the cost of incarceration if there is to be any, versus about $4,500 for a restorative process that typically leaves the victim much more satisfied, the young person reintegrated into the community without even being charged with a crime and much less likely to reoffend, and many community members relieved and grateful. Multiply the criminal justice cost many times for adults locked away for years.But the rub is, punishment is nowhere seen in this process—unless, when you have harmed someone, you consider listening to them express their pain to be punishment, rather than a chance to develop empathy for them, see yourself in a different light, and learn and change in whatever way you now perceive is needed. Some consider that process tougher even than receiving punishment. Others think it’s being “soft on crime.”Can a justice movement not based on punishment grow fast enough to win at the ballot box, even in an über-liberal city? In September the New York Times noted that “Restorative justice has long had proponents in some corners of the criminal justice system, but it is now gaining prominence in an unlikely forum: the San Francisco district attorney’s race.” We go to press too soon to know the result.Or will restorative justice appeal more to small-government and traditional-values conservatives? Some of its elements do appeal to the Right, others to reformist liberals, others to radicals, including prison abolitionists. Of course, there are also elements that each of these players may dislike or hate. And no one will resist it more than the prison-industrial complex and the politicians in its pockets.How it is presented by the media will be critical, but perhaps not decisive: it is how well it works in practice, in those places innovative enough to fund it, that will likely be decisive.Most articles in this issue come from progressive and radical activists, scholars, lawyers, and teachers who are writing wholly from within the restorative justice movement. We are centering their voices because it is they who have both the strongest hope for the transformative power of the movement and the most practical understanding of how the vision of restorative justice can take shape on the ground.While most restorative justice practitioners initially seem to present a unified front, there are certainly differences among them if you listen more closely. Some authors in this issue raise controversial issues within the movement directly, others by inference only. If they criticize anyone, notice how gently they do so. The movement has only got where it has by its practitioners’ commitment to reach out to the humanity in the other, to listen, to suggest and not to judge. A South Asian Buddhist goes to a conservative Florida town to support white Christians in developing a groundbreaking restorative approach to plea bargaining in a murder case (page 22). A survivor of child abuse works with prisoners in San Quentin prison, most of them serving life sentences for violent crimes (page 35). These practitioners could not do their groundbreaking work if they allowed either left-wing or right-wing stereotypes of prosecutors, conservative Christians, or lifers to cloud their vision. That doesn’t mean that restorative practitioners are blind to the realities of power and white supremacy, the legacies of genocide and slavery, the depredations of profiteers, or the violence inherent in the structure of our prison system. But their whole practice is to reach across any divide and connect, empathically.I am writing this article from a slightly different place, as a kind of sympathetic cartographer of the movement. I have felt drawn to restorative justice since first writing about it in Tikkun (September/October 2009) and have started to attend trainings in the field. So with one foot planted inside the restorative justice movement as a student and the other in more journalistic territory, I am hoping to offer a different perspective: a beginner’s bird’s-eye glance at some of the controversial issues both outside and within the movement, and at factors that may be enabling it to gather traction. I am offering this analysis not in a spirit of divisiveness but with the genuine hope that it will help readers who have never heard of the restorative justice movement to grasp the diversity of worldviews within it and understand where opposition and support are likely to arise. It is important for those within the movement to understand ways in which restorative justice is seen by individuals and groups from different places on the political spectrum, from conservative to moderate, and liberal to radical.Once restorative justice becomes a well-known policy option, I assume that small-government conservatives will welcome the budget savings and tax relief, provided they can be convinced that diversions from prison are not dangerous to society. The remarkable experience of New Zealand, which for over twenty years has run its entire juvenile justice system on restorative principles, and has closed its juvenile detention centers, should reassure them. As this experience is not well known in the United States, we are delighted to share an excellent survey of it by one its leading proponents, Judge Fred McElrea, as an online-only article accompanying this print issue.Many social conservatives, especially of a traditional Christian bent, already warm to the notion of bringing offenders to a point of remorse and genuine accountability, and then to redemption, a true change of heart. Chuck Colson, one of the players in the Watergate scandal (long since reformed as a born-again Christian), is considered by many to be America’s leading prison reformer as well as one of its leading Christian conservatives. Excoriating overcrowding and inhuman conditions, Colson signs on to a faith-based strand of restorative justice.However, the centrality of religious conversion to Colson’s version of restorative justice presents a concern for the mainstream movement. Further, conservative philosophy typically blames the individual’s sinful human nature rather than environmental factors in generating crime. Mainstream restorative justice operates from a different model. It is based neither on a medical model of the pathology of the offender, nor on a Christian model of the offender’s sinful nature and dependence on a Higher Power. Instead, a model of mainstream restorative justice is more likely to include concepts such as mutuality, respect, active listening, empathy for ourselves and those we have harmed or been harmed by, a focus on self-empowerment and attendance to the deeper needs of those involved, and the questioning and unlearning of prevailing punitive belief systems. For instance, the behavioral changes noted in violent men through mainstream restorative practices typically result from their coming to understand how they developed strategies to survive child abuse, poverty, racism, police brutality, or other environmental stresses and bought into the prevailing “male role belief system”; from this understanding, as well as from the care of peers and facilitators, flows empathy for their younger selves and then for their victims. The hope of many restorative justice practitioners is that such transformed men (and women) will become participants in reforming the social conditions and inequities that so restricted their options, in addition to practicing emotional maturity in their daily relationships.Many Christians find this development of empathy and social responsibility entirely compatible with Christianity, whether it involves Christian belief or not, but this is not the typical Christian conservative view. However, to an observer like me, both Colsonesque and mainstream restorative justice seem to have much in common—both believe in the individual’s ability to change. As more violent offenders transform themselves through both paths and meet and talk, I assume there will be cross-fertilization.Still, many conservatives who do believe in redemption see it as entirely compatible with punishment. Anyone harmed by crime is likely to feel colossal anger and so traditional notions of “an eye for an eye” will always have great appeal, especially if no mechanisms exist for satisfying the victim’s needs for empathy, answers, or restoration. If restorative options start to divert large numbers from prison, conservative investors in the prison-industrial complex will surely mobilize to protect their investment. They are likely to fund emotive appeals for punishment, many of them in traditional (and selective) biblical terms, and possibly with racist overtones.The essence of mainstream restorative justice is a practice of listening and empathy that is by nature corrosive of ideology and self-righteousness. Thus, combining thorough personal accountability with an understanding of the ways one’s environment has molded one is a complex task, not easily assimilated into some conservatives’ worldview. But that may change.On balance, I assume that most hardcore conservatives will not go for mainstream restorative justice. However, many middle-of-the-road people, including many evangelical Christians, may well support it when they see how well it works for crime victims they know and for any of their own relatives and friends who are arrested for offenses. In a recent case it was remarkable how quickly some police families came around to wanting a restorative justice option when one of their own kids was caught in a possible offense. If approval grows in middle America, it will mainly be because of positive personal experiences that will contradict the media stereotypes and polemics approving punitive justice.The appeal for liberals may be obvious: take better care of victims; drastically reduce the prison system; spend the money on education and public aid instead; reject ugly emotions of revenge; and reintegrate offenders into the community where they can lead productive lives and pay taxes.But what would liberals make of Peter Gabel’s vision of an astonishingly different kind of legal system? Some might feel that’s going too far. That’s to admit that fear of the other has been central to the liberal project all along. That’s to allow that the vaunted rationality of liberalism never has been free of emotion, but has too often been put to the service of a set of fears that serve neither love nor connection. To consciously serve love might be to infect public discourse with emotionality, spirituality, and even religion, in something of a creeping revolution.Something that’s too revolutionary for many liberals should sound good to radical anti-racists and anti-capitalists. Yet, there is something highly distasteful, or suspect, about restorative justice for many radicals.The greatest difficulty for the radical Left is implicit in Fania E. Davis’s words in this issue: “I would say this movement is more subversive than any of the revolutionary movements in which I have been involved since the 1950s. All previous social justice movements have kept us trapped in discordant, binary, either-or, right-wrong, and us-versus-them ways of being present to one another and to the earth.” Binaries are as central to the Left as they are to the Right. Many people have considered Right and Left to be equally self-righteous, equally prone to demonize the other side.It’s not just that someone like Sunny Schwartz (page 37) works for the sheriff’s department and expresses a vision for how corrections can become a noble profession, which looks to many radicals like collaboration with the imperialist and racist state. It’s also that restorative justice seeks to foster a sense of personal accountability in individuals who have perpetrated crimes. Doing so requires more focus on individuals—including on convicted members of oppressed races and classes—than some radicals are comfortable with. Some fear that restorative justice’s focus on individual accountability suggests that it’s the individuals’ fault they are in prison, not the fault of the system.If you imagine that Sunny Schwartz is compromising too much with the American empire, it is worth noting that the central anti-violence teaching in her program is provided by Manalive, which was developed by Hamish Sinclair. Sinclair cut his teeth organizing coal miners and their families in eastern Kentucky and autoworkers in Detroit in the 1960s who were all losing their union jobs as capital sought higher returns elsewhere. He saw his part of the Detroit resistance movement destroyed by the violent objections of union men toward women in their lives who wanted to share in the organizing. Sinclair dedicated his life to building programs for working-class men that would enable them to opt out of the “male role belief system,” in order to organize effectively with women when the times became conducive to organizing once more. Personal accountability and political organizing are two equal sides of Sinclair’s coin; he understands that neither comes easily and neither is complete without the other. One could argue that failure to grasp this has been the bane of most revolutions by radical utopians and of most elected social democratic parties as well. Animal Farm tells the classic tale of revolutionaries who both demonize the oppressor and, because they harbor romantic notions about the ability of the oppressed to be loving and just when they gain power, fail to learn the skills of accountability, empathy, and self-restraint (which a program like Sinclair’s Manalive teaches to highly competitive men).Combining thorough personal accountability with an understanding of the ways one’s environment has molded one is a complex task, not easily assimilated into some radicals’ worldviews. But that may change.Prison abolitionists argue that our current prison system is unreformable. Critical Resistance, a national grassroots group seeking to dismantle the prison-industrial complex, writes:Groups like these that see the restorative justice movement as already too fatally implicated in the criminal justice system (and unrealistic in its idea that there was anything good to be restored in the first place) tend instead to rally around the idea of “transformative justice.”Unlike restorative justice projects, which are often related in some way to the criminal justice system, either as an intervention meant to prevent incarceration or as an effort partly within the prisons to promote healing of offenders and victims, transformative justice projects tend to focus on creating a community-based system wholly outside the prison and courts system, thereby resonating more strongly with the prison abolitionist movement.Each side in this debate can push the other’s buttons. Failure to be sufficiently adversarial toward the criminal injustice system can look unconscionable to transformative justice activists. The use of more adversarial language and practices (e.g., in transformative justice, survivors making demands on those who have harmed them) and a perceived excess of theory over empathic practice can make restorative justice people doubt how transformative these other folks really are.But as Bench Ansfield and Timothy Colman’s article on a Philadelphia-based transformative justice project makes clear (page 41), at the heart of both is the development of empathic practices that work, that increase the sense of safety for survivors of violence, and that help those who perpetrated the harm to change. People who line up on both the restorative and transformative sides of the spectrum already meet and talk, and will do this more as their movements grow. Again, the focus on empathic listening will make it more likely that they will hear each other. Insofar as restorative practices actually work, transformative justice projects will adapt and adopt them, and vice versa.To me, both look like unfinished attempts at the same kind of thing, but starting from different positions in society as well as about society. Many restorative justice proponents start as professionals already in the system (the justice system or the school system—see Rita Alfred’s piece on page 48), who try to work it so that programs can get under way. While their methods may be those of reformers, working with district attorneys, within prisons, grade schools, or law schools, they have hugely transformative dreams. To them, the criticism from prison abolitionists may seem understandable but premature. Both movements, if successful, can end with prisons abolished, or reduced to housing only a tiny number of specific cases; one restorative justice lawyer speculated to me that this number might be as small as 2,000 people in the United States but added that the debate was fruitless at this point because it will be a matter of what works and how well we manage to create alternative methods for keeping people safe and transforming violent behavior. The movements are complementary, this viewpoint holds.And it does behoove restorative justice people to think how they would do things if there were no state-violence sanctions at all in the background of their work: If the alternative to a family or community circle were not criminal charges, or if there were no literally for role would there be enough for enough violent offenders to does a community do with those who an offender is in the community and no one is going to the what sanctions of of can be to to the person to a community It certainly may get to sound a But working out how to do this is a that many restorative justice people already we think of as radical on what we think the the of human to be in human nature as for by or is it or racism, or failure to For evangelical Christians, being is the most radical For some left-wing activists, does not sound radical For others it’s the that is the it suggests traditional of victim and offender, even of and when what is is to such notions and to the radical that has the same set of human is different strategies to meet their and to and to actually result in reduced safety and violence (see article on page of this there are and people feel strongly about them. However, in with restorative and transformative justice practitioners on different places on the spectrum, I have to criticize the they all seem their own visions them, they have much to to each other. is entirely within the empathic of these movements, and them from those whether on the Left or the Right, adversarial is different in restorative justice from other organizing. of that movement have their is this growing more becomes clear as soon as you to the They are less likely to theory than they are to you of and they are it is them experiences that they to deeper and the to One central practice is the in which can be heard and no one practitioners have different ways of A may be on the with of the and A or or other words that to the of those present may be A may be each person in a set by the They may start by how they the circle to what it should what they from the others in order to feel safe enough to what kind of respect, they on the circle goes to the it has been from a person who has been on a to the how well the has been or other inherent to that find that the circle structure them to more how it People and then their own of pain and A offender is to find that in the circle to how to the harm he has he can as long as he needs the district a to see how the process it is his to do so. A has already been with the that in the circle will be as should the case go to A was by a up the free A young who two and returns two years to offer because his is and he to make a he to pay the families in for what he and by his to spend the money on for and his to help the of abuse he has this becomes part of the he to criminal practices and of are the of the movement. However, it is not growing because the are and to all but also because they are and can find in juvenile and their is in of and in like reduced These practices do not on but can be so that from within the community and does not have to come from from a the same how much to and is an issue that may become and and is and there be ways of working out who has a debate on the of the versus other terms, it’s worth at September on his is one of the movement’s and leading One of his is to a by who of those who would like to the when restorative practices are not to the criminal justice on that another in the and the difficulty of such issues in the movement, which he started if there might be a strand of in the issues of justice, accountability, are issues not in of over too find a to the Christian movements that in I has been more with belief than most but it has always had that were most with behavioral emotional or may be of concern to such has been a likely of such movements, and so has resistance among and white proponents to questioning their own But in other such movements, love with the and the we saw in has people into for including and building the to me that restorative practices are a version of these movements of personal this movement is in and to be to people of all and but it is as as its practitioners it to radical of empathic listening and makes it with or a with any kind of version of personal is also much more strongly to of social racism, and inherited If the movement to like Fania who for in the movement to themselves more in the and in the ways the criminal justice system is as a new then we will start to have the kind of of personal change with change that many of us have been for years is the only way a society can be

A criminal act is an unlawful behavior carried out by an individual and must be punished for the wrongdoing as stated in the law. Criminal acts committed by children or known as juvenile delinquency are now increasingly widespread and varied, both in frequency in quantity or in seriousness in quality in the form of crime. If child crime develops rapidly and widely, what happens is that children who commit crimes will grow into adults and have the potential to become criminals if there is no serious response early on. This study uses an approach with a normative juridical method with a descriptive analytical research specification. The data used is secondary data. Based on the research results, the conclusions in this study include 1) The factors that cause children to commit the crime of theft include internal factors (personality), environmental factors and economic factors. 2) Implementation of restorative justice in handling the crime of motorcycle theft which is in accordance with the Implementation of the Diversion Child Criminal Justice System Law Number 11 of 2012. In applying restorative/diversion justice, there are always efforts for every child who commits a crime. In some cases, diversion can be carried out with the consent of all parties, so that the case does not reach the prosecution level. Restorative justice only applies to petty crimes, with mediation through deliberation. The application of restorative justice has not been effective, because there are still people who fail to implement the purpose of diversion in the investigation of criminal cases of theft of children's motorcycles, especially the police have not implemented the purpose of restorative justice. Everything from the number of children who steal motorcycles. 3) Obstacles in overcoming the crime of motorcycle theft by children through restorative justice, namely the difference in perceptions related to the meaning of justice by restorative justice actors and the existence of an incosystem in the implementation of regulations, especially those regulated in article 7 paragraph (2) of law number 11 of 2012 about the juvenile criminal justice system.

This study examines the effectiveness of non-custodial sanctions within Indonesia’s juvenile justice system, with a particular focus on the implementation of restorative justice in Bengkulu Province. Grounded in Law No. 11 of 2012 on the Juvenile Criminal Justice System (UU SPPA) and international instruments such as the CRC and Tokyo Rules, the research explores the normative, institutional, and empirical dimensions of diversion and community-based sanctions for children in conflict with the law. Adopting a socio-legal methodology, the study combines doctrinal analysis with qualitative fieldwork involving 25 semi-structured interviews with judges, prosecutors, police investigators, correctional officers, and community leaders, complemented by direct observations of diversion sessions and the analysis of court and institutional documents. The findings reveal a strong normative commitment to restorative principles but highlight significant gaps in practice due to limited institutional capacity, inconsistent inter-agency coordination, and persistent cultural stigmas. Diversion programs in Bengkulu have demonstrated positive impacts on rehabilitation and social reintegration, particularly when supported by families and local communities. However, the absence of standardized procedures, integrated data systems, and adequate professional training undermines long-term sustainability. The study concludes that meaningful juvenile justice reform requires not only legal and procedural refinement but also transformative engagement with societal attitudes and sustained investment in supportive infrastructure. It further offers concrete policy recommendations to strengthen the restorative justice ecosystem and promote a more humane, rights-based approach to juvenile justice in Indonesia.

Restorative justice in handling juvenile delinquent occurs because of the juvenile justice system growth. The increasing number of institutions that guarantee the rights of children in juvenile delinquent at the courts has led more implementation of the criminal justice system that applies restorative justice. Alignment between the 2000 UN declaration as the main principles regarding the use of restorative justice programs in criminal matters, the Vienna Declaration on crime and justice, the XI UN congress in 2005 on crime and criminal justice as a basis for researchers who passionate to examine how philosophical concept of restorative justice in juvenile delinquent and how the mechanism for applying restorative justice in juvenile delinquent uses normative juridical research. After conducting research, the philosophical concept of restorative justice in handling juvenile delinquent can be seen from before the rise of Law Number 3 of 1997 concerning Juvenile Court which refers to the provisions of the Criminal Code Articles 45, 46, and 47 which contain the authority of judges in making decisions regarding types of crimes, types of punishment and the length of punishment for children, Law Number 3 of 1997 concerning Juvenile Court and Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System. In line with the philosophy of the mechanism for the application of restorative justice in handling juvenile delinquent, there are several regulations in Indonesia such as the Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2014 concerning Guidelines for Implementing Diversion in the Juvenile Criminal Justice System, Government Regulation Number 65 of 2015 concerning Guidelines for Implementing Diversion and Handling of Children who have not 12 years old and a certificate from the Director General of Badilum Number 1691/DJU/SK/PS.00/12/2020 dated 22 December 2020 concerning Guidelines for the Implementation of Restorative Justice in the General Courts.