Urgency of the Legal Structure Reformation for Law in Execution of Criminal Sanctions

Ultimum remedium is one of the principles contained in Indonesian criminal law which says that criminal law should be made a final effort in the case of law enforcement. However, law enforcement through the criminal justice system is currently still dominated by the positivism mindset, a way of (criminal) law enforcement which is only based on laws and regulations. In many cases, Criminal Law is used as the only way of order. The purpose of this research is to describe the concept of Ultimum remedium in criminal law, criminal law enforcement practices in Indonesia, and criminal law enforcement concepts in the progressive law paradigm. This research used a philosophical approach discussing law enforcement idealism in the future. The data used were the qualitatively analyzed secondary data. The research results showed that the Ultimum remedium principle has not been completely implemented in law enforcement. Consequently, the burden for crime settlements got bigger and made the law enforcers busier. The Ultimum remedium principle is supported by various considering bases or grounds from the constitutional law aspect, political science, criminal law, and humanism consideration or human rights. Law enforcement in Indonesia was viewed as stagnant and discriminative law enforcement. It was illustrated as a spider web that can only trap the weak but will be easily torn by the rich and strong. Factors inhibiting law enforcement in Indonesia include weak political will and political action of the state leaders to make law as the commander. The regulations and laws reflect the political interests of authorities more than those of the society. Thus, criminal law enforcement is greatly necessary for the progressive law paradigm. Progressivity is greatly required in law enforcement. Progressive law departs from the humanistic perspective. Thinking progressively means having the courage to get out from the law absolutism thinking mainstream and positioning law in the relative position located in the entire humanistic problems.

Croatia is relatively small country with population of approx. 4 million inhabitants. It is a European country, and is part of the Central and Eastern Europe. The area of the state is 56, 594 km2 by land, and 31,479 km2 by sea (interior waters and territorial sea), in total 88,073 km2 which makes Croatia one of the medium-sized European countries. It was a part of Yugoslavia till 1991. After its inde- pendence, Croatia shifted from socialist regime to democracy, and the law reform followed. Croatia has enacted new Constitution in compliance with all international standards, abolishing the death penalty. In the beginning of its independence, it has taken existing legislature of Yugoslavia, but later it has been working on its own legislature and reform of the judiciary and (criminal) law system. So, in past few decades it has gone through a significant law reform, among other law areas criminal law was also significantly affected and influenced by the state law reform. Many new laws were enacted regulating area of criminal law, as well as the laws regulating some issues relevant for criminal law (both substantive or procedural, and penitentiary as well). The main laws in field of criminal law (in broader sense) are Penal code (subsequently: PC) for Substantive criminal law, Criminal Procedure Act (subsequently: CPA) for Criminal procedural law and Penitentiary Act (subsequently: PA) for Penitentiary law. In this paper (report) will be presented some key information about Croatia, Croatia’s judiciary system and criminal law system and reform.

In order to shed light on aspects of the use and overuse in the criminal law system, policy and law enforcement in the Netherlands, one can see several more or less dualistic developments. The major trend is clear: there is a strong call to emphasize the possibilities for criminal liability, criminal prosecution and sanctioning. The general approach is highly politically driven; politicians want to be ‘tough on crime’. For instance, as a reaction to terrorism, this tendency might be understood as being driven by developments in society. The call for a certain change in substantive criminal law and in the possibilities for investigating computer crimes is louder nowadays as well. This accentuated use of criminal law does not necessarily need to be characterized as ‘overuse’. Other aspects and changes tend more towards this qualification, especially where changes in criminal law politics are driven by other factors than what is necessary within a rational-pragmatic, evidence-based approach and policy.

The 1945 Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 confirms that Indonesia is a country of law. The one important principle of state of law is the guarantee of the implementation of independent judicial power, free from the influence of other powers to organize judiciary to enforce the law and justice. This study is based on the curiosity of investigators in uncovering the scope and existence of judicial power in Indonesia. The scope and existence were restricted to two state institutions in the field of the judiciary, the Supreme Court (SC) and the Constitutional Court (CC). Therefore, this study aims to identify and analyze the comparison (similarities and differences) between the authority of the SC and the CC. This study views of its kind is a normative legal research. While the views of nature, descriptive study. SC and the CC have the same authority to be a court decision that is both first and last. SC and the CC provides access to people who can not afford as the recipient of legal aid to be able to act. SC have jurisdiction in the enforcement of the criminal law, while the CC, does not have jurisdiction in the enforcement of the criminal law, but the CC decision related to the decriminalization of significant influence in the enforcement of criminal law. SC and the CC differ in their patterns and the supervision of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court. SC and the CC different in terms of a court decision is final and binding. The SC decision, are not the first and last because is final and binding and there is also not final but is already binding. There are differences of transparency in the legislation review in the SC and the CC. Keywords: The Rule of Law, Attribution Power, Judicial Power, Justice.

Criminal justice system as a tool of law enforcement, didn't work optimally in Indonesia. It often being used by executive power because its position and function didn't independent and subordinated by executive power. Judicial power is an independent power, but other subsistem in CJS such as investigative power, prosecution power, and Executors power structurally and functionally are under executive power, and as result that their roles as a power instrument to service power's interest. This research purpose to set ideal format in integrated CJS working , to manifest judicial power in the independency and integrated criminal law enforcement through reconstruction and reorientation of criminal justice system construction, substantial and cultural. Main object in this research is criminal law enforcement policy, juridical normative and sociological approach, primary and secondary data as a main data to qualitative analyzing. The result of this research show that function of subsystem in criminal justice system (such as investigation, prosecution, and execution power ) have not show independent yet, cause of under the executive power. Anyway judicial power is set as independent power out of executive power, in organizationing, budgeting, staffing, and carrier system under one roof system that subordinated by Supreme Court . Here CJS is unsystemic but partially and fragmentair. This situation result subsytem rivality and in the end can be barrier in CJS performances. There is policy measures to implement integrally of independency criminal justice system by systemic approach to reset related policy in the law substance, the law structure and the law culture. Keywords : reconstruction, criminal justice system, independency and judicial power.

The development of information technology has given birth to cybercrime as a form of modern criminality that challenges the foundations of conventional criminal law. Cybercrime is not only non-territorial and complex, but also has a broad impact on the public, economic, and security interests of the country. This research aims to analyze the normative construction of cybercrime in the Indonesian criminal law system, examine the harmonization of its regulation between Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions and Law Number 1 of 2024 concerning the Criminal Code, and identify the challenges of criminal law enforcement in the digital era. The research method used is normative juridical with a legislative, conceptual, and systematic approach. The results of the study show that cybercrime regulation still faces the problem of unclear formulation of delicacies, fragmentation of norms, and potential disharmonization between sectoral laws and national criminal law codification. In addition, cyber criminal law enforcement is faced with electronic proof constraints, limited capacity of the apparatus, and the complexity of cross-border jurisdictions. This condition creates a gap between the normative goals of criminal law and law enforcement practices. Therefore, it is necessary to harmonize and integrate more comprehensive cybercrime regulations so that criminal law is able to provide legal certainty, justice, and human rights protection in a balanced manner in the digital era

Renewing the functionalization of sentencing guidelines in the criminal law system in Indonesia is the main topic of this article. The central purpose of this reform is to increase fairness, effectiveness, and efficiency in criminal law enforcement in Indonesia. With structured and clear sentencing guidelines, it is hoped that the sentencing process can be carried out consistently and transparently, providing fair decisions for all parties involved. This article highlights several important aspects that need to be considered in renewing the functionalization of criminal law in Indonesia. First, justice in the sentencing process must be maintained by ensuring equal treatment for all individuals before the law. Second, technological innovation is crucial for increasing efficiency and accuracy in the legal process. Third, crime prevention and rehabilitation are also important focuses for creating a safer and more civilized society. In addition, the significance of international cooperation is increasing the capacity of law enforcement officials, as well as transparency and accountability are also emphasized in this article. Challenges such as harmonization of regulations, limited resources, resistance from certain parties, and so on, must be overcome with strong commitment and cooperation from various related parties. It is hoped that with a deep understanding of these challenges, updating the functionalization of criminal law and sentencing guidelines in Indonesia can have a positive impact on efforts to achieve better legal justice. Cross-sector collaboration, innovation, and strong commitment from the government, legal authorities, and society as a whole are the main keys to realizing a fairer and more effective criminal legal system in the future.

The principle of lex specialis (fully stated as lex specialis derogat legi generali), as stipulated in Article 63 (2) of Indonesian Penal Code, becomes a guidelines in dealing with criminal offenses which are concurrent in nature, violating the provisions regulated in both general and special penal law at the same time. The practice of criminal law enforcement shows the existence of an offense amounting to the violation of two distinct offenses stipulated in two different acts, i.e. violating the Forestry Act and Corruption Eradication Act, or violating Banking Act and Corruption Eradication Act at the same time. The criminal procedure of this kind of offense shows inconsistency and discrimination, for in several cases, the perpetrators were only charged with violation of Banking Act or Forestry Act, while in other cases the perpetrators were charged with violation of both acts. Such implementation arouses injustice and legal uncertainty, as well as adverses the effort to eradicate corruption. The issues which are going to be discussed are: 1) the concept of special penal law in Indonesian criminal law system, 2) the implementation of the principle of lex specialis in Indonesian criminal law enforcement, 3) the concept of special penal law in Indonesian criminal law system in the future. This research is a normative juridical research which applies principle, statute, historical, and comparative approach respectively. The study of the concept and history of special penal law is conducted by comparing to those of the Dutch special penal law. In Indonesian criminal law system, special penal law is understood as the legislations apart from the Penal Code, penalizing certain offenses or applied for certain group of people, and concerning substantive and procedural rules distinct from those of the general criminal law. With regards to Article 63 (2) of Indonesian Penal Code, the special penal law provision is regarded as a special criminal provision logically and systematically/juridically. The criminal provision regulating qualified offenses (gequalifiseerde delict) and petty misdemeanor (geprivilegieerde delict) is a provision logical to the criminal provision regulating the principal offense. The criminal provisions in the statutes apart from the Penal Code are understood as a special criminal provisions systematical to those in the Penal Code. The statutes regarded as special penal laws are divided into two categories, that is first, the statutes concerning state authority to forbid and penalize (criminal laws), and the statutes concerning state authority to regulate certain objects and set certain criminal punishment of people who violate these laws (administrative penal law). This condition is different with that of the Dutch, of which the special penal law is that of the latter. Out of fourty Supreme Court judgments examined, only three of those stating explicitly the implementation of lex specialis principle, while in other judgments the implementation of it was implicitly derived from the model of the indictment and the provisions charged or implemented upon the accused. The models of the charges applied were those of subsidiary (special provision into primary indictment) and cumulative nature (special provision into first indictment). The re-examination of the implementation of lex specialis principle were conducted based on the examination of four criminal cases that unite two special criminal provisions systematically. Based on the doctrinal aspects of the Dutch Supreme Court jurisprudence of 1932, the lex specialis principle was not applied in such kind of case. Both special penal law provisions shall be charged upon the accused, until it is stated proven by the judge. In Indonesian criminal law system in the future, the concept of special penal law will be that of administrative penal law. For the sake of equitable, fruitful and certain law enforcement, there need to be guidelines on the implementation of lex specialis principle for law enforcement officers, concerning the offenses and the phases of its application, the indictment model, and the charging.

The background of this thesis is based on the role of pretrial which functions as a social control mechanism, its implementation in Indonesia still often experiences violations. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out an in-depth analysis to identify the causes of these violations and find solutions to increase the effectiveness of pre-trials in protecting the rights of individuals who are disadvantaged in the application of criminal law in Indonesia. The problem formulation for this thesis is How pre-trial arrangements are made in positive law in Indonesia ? and What is the function and role of pretrial in criminal law enforcement in Indonesia? The research method for this thesis is Normative Juridical where the author examines phenomena related to Pre-Trial from the aspects of Legislation and Legal Principles. The results of this thesis research are that pretrial arrangements in the criminal justice system in Indonesia are regulated in Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code. Pretrial, in accordance with Article 1 point (10) in conjunction with Article 77 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is the authority of the district court to examine and decide on several matters, including whether or not an arrest and detention is legal, the termination of an investigation or prosecution, as well as requests for compensation or rehabilitation. Pretrial has an important role in maintaining the balance of law enforcement powers and individual rights in enforcing criminal law. Its main function is to control law enforcement actions and procedures, ensuring justice and compliance with applicable laws. Pretrial is also closely related to the principle of Habeas Corpus which guarantees that a person must not be detained without a valid reason and must be immediately brought to justice. Through pretrial proceedings, individuals can protect themselves from arbitrary actions by law enforcement and seek redress if their rights are violated. Pretrial and the principle of Habeas Corpus together form an important part of the criminal law system in Indonesia which focuses on justice and the protection of human rights.

The application of legality principle in Indonesia criminal law system is the main tool in the enforcement of criminal law. The nature of legal certainty attached to the principle of legality makes criminal law one of the fields of legal science that is certain in the eyes of the law. Because it attaches to clear and firm legal frames, it is an instrument of guidance and limitation in applying concrete cases. This paper analyzes how the principle of legality in criminal law can make the law a certainty. The principle of legality limits in detail and carefully what actions can be punished. The results of the study state that in Indonesia, based on the principle of legality, criminal acts must be regulated in writing. However, some areas still use customary law. Then the nature of criminal law may not apply retroactively.

Since crime was known in society, criminal law experts from ancient times initially considered punishment as a means of treatment (remedy) to cure perpetrators of criminal acts by giving sanctions that have a deterrent effect, so that criminals no longer repeat their actions, including for minor criminal cases. The research was conducted using the Normative Juridical research method with literature studies, with the formulation of the problem to be raised, namely (1) How is the Law Enforcement of Minor Criminal Offenses Based on Restorative Justice in Order to Create Order in the Criminal Law and Sentencing System, and a Comparison of the Legal Basis in Indonesia with the United States and Singapore? and (2) What is the Ideal Concept of Law Enforcement of Minor Criminal Offenses Based on Restorative Justice Based on Progressive Legal Theory that is Expected in the Future (Ius Constituendum)?, and it is concluded, Firstly that the enforcement of minor criminal law with Restorative Justice in order to create order in the Criminal Law and Punishment System in Indonesia still has dualism in its law enforcement by law enforcers,,,

The criminal justice system is an idea founded on judicial principles and constitutionalism. It includes the interaction of many institutions and remedies. An effective criminal justice system is essential for an orderly society and the protection of human rights. However, quite different from this ideology, Indian criminal justice faces many complications such as soaring crime rates, outdated laws, late proceedings, inefficient law enforcement agencies. to name a few. The criminal justice system urgently needs reform measures, based on natural justice and human rights, to rejuvenate the system. These minimal but essential measures include consistent reform of the criminal law, fostering and building trust in a skeptical justice system, curbing abuses of power by the police system, and obvious measures. of the welfare state and it is the moral duty of every citizen of India to obey and respect criminals. judicial system.

Criminal law reform in Indonesia marks a significant shift from the old Penal Code (KUHP) to the new KUHP, aimed at strengthening law enforcement, ensuring legal certainty, and protecting human rights (HR). This reform reflects the necessity of a modern criminal justice system that is responsive to democratic demands and oriented towards substantive justice. One of the main aspects of the reform is the emphasis on progressive legal principles, including the protection of human rights during law enforcement processes and recognition of victims' rights. The new KUHP introduces more diversified punishment mechanisms, alternative criminal resolutions, and clearer provisions regarding criminal liability, including for corporate crimes. The reform underscores the importance of balancing state interests with individual protection within the criminal justice system. Thus, law enforcement focuses not only on repressive aspects but also on preventive, restorative, and rehabilitative measures. This study highlights the transformation of criminal norms, changes in legal structures, and the practical impact of the new KUHP on law enforcement practices in Indonesia. The analysis employs normative and descriptive juridical approaches, examining amended, deleted, or added articles and their implications for criminal justice institutions, including the police, prosecutors, courts, and correctional facilities. The results indicate that KUHP reform not only updates legal norms but also shifts the paradigm of law enforcement towards a more humane and democratic approach. Implementation challenges, such as law enforcement capacity, public awareness, and harmonization with other regulations, are crucial factors determining the effectiveness of this reform. In conclusion, the new KUHP represents a significant milestone in establishing a fair, transparent criminal law system oriented towards human rights protection, while simultaneously strengthening the legitimacy of law enforcement in Indonesia.

In this discussion, we aim to address the topic of the formal challenges of criminal liability of legal persons in Iran's criminal justice system and the procedural issues associated with it. One of the innovations of the Islamic Penal Code ratified in 2013 is the recognition of criminal liability for legal persons. The significance and special status of legal persons in contemporary society compelled the legislator to establish this important institution in criminal law by dedicating several articles to it. Criminal liability of legal persons has not been discussed in Islamic jurisprudence. This research examines the criminal liability of legal persons in Iran's criminal justice system. The foundations of criminal liability of legal persons differ between jurisprudence and law, although there are similarities in the reasoning process; however, the methods of proof vary. The basis of the criminal liability of legal persons is vicarious liability. Legal persons may attempt to conceal their assets to evade the enforcement of criminal judgments. Additionally, corruption and collusion can influence judicial and enforcement procedures, thereby harming justice and trust in the judicial system. Delays in various stages of the judicial process, such as issuing judgments later than expected and delays in executing enforcement actions, can also reduce confidence in justice. Insufficient coordination and cooperation between judicial, enforcement, and law enforcement institutions can present obstacles to enforcing criminal judgments against legal persons. These challenges highlight the necessity of reforms and changes in Iran's judicial and criminal enforcement systems to improve procedural efficiency and enhance justice when dealing with legal persons who bear criminal liability. The research methodology is analytical and descriptive. The findings of this study emphasize reforming the perpetrator and facilitating fair trial proceedings, ensuring that the harm inflicted on victims is adequately compensated. Given the resources available to legal persons, they are in a better position than natural persons to compensate the victims of crimes. Punishing legal persons upholds the principle of equality before the law and the principle of the individuality of punishments, thereby promoting justice and fairness.

This study examines the urgency and effectiveness of criminal law enforcement in Indonesian general elections, with a case study in South Sulawesi Province. The research aims to: (1) analyze the importance of criminal election law enforcement in realizing justice, legal certainty, and utility, and (2) evaluate its effectiveness in practice. A normative–empirical mixed-methods design was employed by integrating doctrinal legal analysis with descriptive qualitative and quantitative approaches. Primary data were obtained through interviews, observations, and questionnaires administered to Bawaslu commissioners, members of the Gakkumdu Center, legal practitioners, academics, and community representatives across several districts/cities. Secondary data were derived from literature studies, official documents, and court rulings. The findings indicate that while the urgency of criminal election law enforcement is very high, its actual effectiveness in South Sulawesi remains low. Key constraints include: (1) legal provisions that impose relatively mild sanctions and short investigation deadlines; (2) weak institutional coordination within Gakkumdu and the absence of coercive authority, particularly detention powers. Drawing on the theoretical perspectives of Radbruch, Friedman, Soekanto, and Rahardjo, the study concludes that effective electoral criminal law enforcement requires a balanced interaction between legal substance, enforcement structures, and societal legal culture, supported by a progressive approach oriented toward substantive justice. The study recommends regulatory and institutional reforms particularly revisions to Law No. 7 of 2017 enhanced inter-agency coordination, and the development of a participatory legal culture to ensure fair, integrity-based, and dignified elections.