Criminal Justice System Research Articles

Abstract This study examines the relationship between encounters with the criminal justice system and psychological well-being in a large U.S. sample. This project builds upon previous research about the negative outcomes tied to such encounters by examining potential long term negative effects on people’s subjective well-being and sense of meaning and purpose in life. Panel study participants indicated their lifetime exposure to the criminal justice system, and then, about two years later, indicated their current subjective well-being and sense of meaning and purpose in life. Our findings reveal that the number of past police arrests is associated with reductions in well-being, with the first arrest showing the strongest effect. When controlling for number of previous arrests, no other aspect of exposure to the criminal justice system (e.g., the presence of a criminal conviction, amount of time spent detained) was significantly related to well-being. Race and gender predict encounters with the criminal justice system, but the relation to well-being remains consistent across demographics. Given the importance of meaning and life purpose as a protective factor against trauma and stress, it is vital to understand how first encounters with the criminal justice system, in particular, are related to people’s sense of purpose and meaning.

The development of the criminal justice system in Indonesia, which was previously implemented with a retributive system, has not been fully able to fulfill the sense of justice for the community. A policy was issued with a restorative justice system that is oriented towards justice, considering that victims of criminal acts can not only experience material losses but are very likely to experience immaterial losses. The definition of restorative justice is an effort to provide a restoration of relationships and redemption of mistakes that the perpetrator of the crime (his family) wants to do to the victim of the crime (his family) with peace efforts outside the court. The intent and purpose are that legal problems that arise as a result of the criminal act can be resolved properly by reaching an agreement between the parties so that there is no element of revenge. This research is a type of normative juridical research, with the specification of descriptive analysis research. It uses research methods obtained by researchers indirectly through intermediary media and using library techniques, in analyzing the formulation of the problem using the theory of law application and the theory of legal protection. Restorative justice is currently not only a concern of the police and the Attorney General’s Office, but also the Supreme Court and several agencies in the Criminal Justice System in Indonesia. This can be seen from the issuance of a Joint Memorandum of Understanding between the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, the Minister of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia, the Chief of Police of the Republic of Indonesia Number 131/KMA/SKB/X/2012 Concerning the Implementation of the Application of Adjustments to the Limits of Minor Crimes, the Amount of Fines, Fast Examination Procedures, and the Application of Restorative Justice and Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2024 concerning Guidelines for Trying Criminal Cases Based on Restorative Justice. This requires special attention to the implementation of handling every criminal case that prioritizes restorative justice, because there is a conflict of norms in its application and handling since it is contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code. So, an ideal concept is needed in the criminal justice system in Indonesia, namely its handling by the law enforcement institution of the Attorney General’s Office.

This study examines the dynamic interaction between Islamic law principles and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in the juvenile criminal justice system, with a comparative study focusing on Indonesia, Iran, and Pakistan. Islamic law, through the concepts of bulugh and Ta’zir, aims at the correction and improvement (ishlah) of minors. The CRC, on the other hand, sets a standard age of 18 years, prohibits the death penalty/life imprisonment, and encourages rehabilitation, diversion, and non-custodial treatment. Using descriptive-comparative and analytical-normative legal methods, the study analyzes the laws and practices of the three countries. The results show significant variations: Indonesia has been relatively successful in integrating the values of the CRC and Islamic Law in the 2012 Juvenile Justice Act, prioritizing diversion and training. In contrast, Iran faces serious conflict because the Shia interpretation allows hudud and qisas punishments for children under 18, leading to executions in contravention of the CRC. Pakistan, despite having progressive legislation ( JJSA 2018) in line with the CRC, has shown poor implementation, characterized by inconsistent definitions of children, inhumane treatment by authorities, minimal diversion, and poor conditions of excluded facilities. The discussion underlines that harmonization of these two legal frameworks is highly dependent on flexible interpretation and effective implementation. As a suggestion, Indonesia needs to continue to improve the SPPA Law. Iran should reform its laws to abolish the death penalty for children and align the age of responsibility. Pakistan urgently needs drastic improvements in standardizing the definition of children, improving remote conditions, and training law enforcement officers to realize comprehensive child rights protection.

The Prosecutor’s Office is one of the institutions in the criminal justice system that has an important position in law enforcement in Indonesia. The authority of the prosecutor’s office includes implementing court decisions in the form of returning criminal assets. In this journal, the problem raised is how the procedure for returning criminal assets is carried out at the Gianyar District Prosecutor’s Office, and whether the implementation of returning criminal assets carried out at the Gianyar District Prosecutor’s Office is in accordance with the principle of transparency. The purpose of writing this journal is to find out the procedure for returning criminal assets at the Gianyar District Prosecutor’s Office and to find out the suitability between the implementation of asset return activities at the Gianyar District Prosecutor’s Office and the principle of transparency. The research method used is the empirical legal research method. Based on the results of the study, the return of criminal assets at the Gianyar District Prosecutor’s Office is carried out in two ways, namely being taken by the owner of the goods by showing proof of ownership of the goods or a power of attorney (if the person taking it is not the original owner), or being delivered directly by the Gianyar District Prosecutor’s Office to the owner of the goods. In addition, the activities of returning criminal assets carried out at the Gianyar District Attorney’s Office have been in accordance with the principle of transparency, as indicated by the openness of information on evidence provided by the Gianyar District Attorney’s Office through the official website of the Gianyar District Attorney’s Office and the official social media of the Gianyar District Attorney’s Office.

Abstract DNA analysis, as part of forensic investigation, has transformed the criminal justice system by providing highly accurate evidence to link individuals to crime scenes, thereby enhancing forensic reliability while also increasing public trust in the system. However, its application in notable cases, such as the Nithari Kand and Aarushi Talwar cases, has revealed systemic weaknesses. These cases highlight the challenges of implementing DNA technology in underdeveloped forensic infrastructures, raising concerns about the consistency and reliability of forensic processes. The present study examines the efficacy and limitations of DNA analysis in criminal investigations in India, utilizing qualitative data from forensic experts ( n = 8), investigating officers ( n = 12) and legal professionals ( n = 60), as well as forensic reports and court documents. We found that while DNA evidence played a critical role in victim identification and suspect linkage, its impact was often compromised by procedural lapses, sample contamination and delayed forensic processing. These findings contribute to the growing body of research on forensic science in developing legal systems and offer practical implications for reforming India’s forensic and investigative infrastructure.

Children are the next generation of the nation and have a very important role to lead and advance the nation. Children often have problems when facing the law, which is an subject. This study aims to determine the legal handling of children who commit crimes. It uses an empirical sociological approach or an approach through direct surveys in the field and collects secondary data through library studies. The research specification used is descriptive analytical, which is an effort to analyze and explain legal problems related to objects with a comprehensive and systematic description of everything related to the handling of children in conflict with the law. Handling of children who commit crimes requires a different legal approach from the adult criminal justice system, namely prioritizing restorative justice in accordance with Law Number 11 of 2012. In its implementation, of course, there are significant obstacles that affect the smoothness of the handling process itself.

Children as perpetrators of sexual violence crimes presents a complex dilemma in the Indonesian criminal justice system. On the one hand, there is a need to provide justice for victims and enforce the law, but on the other hand, the state is obliged to provide special protection for children involved in the law based on the Child Criminal Justice System Law (UU SPPA). Children in conflict with the law, whether due to coercion, ignorance, or environmental factors, require a different approach from adult perpetrators. This research is normative legal research using a statutory and conceptual approach. Data collection was carried out through a literature study of primary legal materials such as laws and regulations, secondary legal materials in the form of books and scientific journals, and tertiary legal materials. The results of the study show that the legal system in Indonesia has adopted the principle of the best interest of the child through diversion and restorative justice mechanisms. Legal protection is provided at every stage of the trial, from investigation to post-decision guidance, with a focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution. Child perpetrators can be subject to action, not criminal sanctions in prison, which are adjusted to their age and level of guilt. However, its implementation still faces challenges such as social stigma, limited capacity of foster institutions, and harmonization between the rights of children as perpetrators and the rights of victims.

The enforcement of criminal law concerning electronic transaction crimes in Indonesia faces multifaceted challenges, including normative, structural, and technological obstacles. Although legal frameworks such as the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (Law No. 11 of 2008, as amended) and the new Indonesian Penal Code (Law No. 1 of 2023) address certain aspects of cybercrime, these regulations fall short in responding to the evolving complexity and transnational nature of digital offenses. This paper argues that a comprehensive and systemic reform of the criminal justice system is urgently needed. Such reform must include the development of adaptive legal norms, enhancement of law enforcement digital capacities, improvement of inter-agency coordination, and the digital transformation of criminal judicial procedures. By adopting retributive, restorative, and distributive justice approaches, Indonesia can strengthen its legal resilience and ensure equitable access to justice in the digital era.

The study aims to evaluate the current procedures for the assessment of behavioral risk factors for criminality. The assessment of behavioral risk factors for criminality is a critical component of effective criminal justice interventions and such assessments can inform decisions regarding sentencing, parole, and rehabilitation programs. However, the evaluation of the validity, reliability, and predictive accuracy of these procedures remains a complex and ongoing task. Assessment of behavioral risk factors for criminality is a vast area of research that has significant implications for criminal justice systems, mental health services, and community interventions. While traditional methods of crime control such as law enforcement and incarnation remains essential, there is a growing emphasis on proactive strategies that aim to prevent crime before it occurs. One of such approaches involves the current procedures for assessment of behavioral risk factors for criminality which is a critical component of effective criminal justice intervention and can also inform decisions regarding sentencing, parole and rehabilitation programs, but all these Is not free of challenges and limitations. This paper aims to go through some of these challenges, recommend solutions to some of the challenges of current procedures for assessment of behavioral risk factors for criminality. The main objectives of this paper is to evaluate the current procedures for assessment of behavioral risk factors for criminality by identifying some of the indicators for risk assessment, pathways to risk assessment, how risk assessment is been conducted, processing of outcomes, tool used to assess risk factors, the limitation and challenges faced. Conclusions and Recommendations were made on how to improve on these current procedures for assessment of risk factors for criminality.

Abstract The purpose of the study was to identify key barriers preventing the effective application of generally accepted norms and principles of international law in criminal proceedings. The study was devoted to the analysis of the problems of the implementation of international standards in the national legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Kazakhstan. The methodology included a comparative legal analysis of national legislation and a regulatory analysis of international standards in this area. The results of the study showed that, despite the formal recognition of international standards of criminal justice, their effective implementation in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan faces several legal, institutional and sociopolitical challenges. Among the key barriers, legal gaps have been identified, allowing for variability in the interpretation of international law norms, which leads to their unsystematic and often selective application. In addition, insufficient harmonization of national legislation with international obligations was noted, especially regarding the protection of the rights of the accused, extradition, immunity of officials and respect for procedural guarantees. An analysis of the institutional framework revealed limited independence of the judiciary, high levels of corruption in law enforcement agencies and insufficient effectiveness of international cooperation mechanisms. Based on the identified problems, recommendations for improving the criminal justice system were proposed. In particular, the need to eliminate legal gaps and improve mechanisms for interpreting and adapting international norms in national legislation was substantiated. An important area of reform is related to ensuring the independence of the judicial system through the introduction of transparent mechanisms for the selection and rotation of judges, and strengthening responsibility for violations of procedural norms.

Decision number 3/Pid.Pra/2018/PN Pso is a pretrial decision that has permanent legal force because no appeal or cassation can be made, with the following verdict in essence: Declaring the Instruction Letter (P-19) invalid and not binding; declaring the action that stops the prosecution is invalid; ordering the case files to be immediately transferred to the Poso District Court for trial. This thesis aims to study and analyze the authority of the Pretrial Judge in examining and deciding cases regarding the invalidity of the termination of the investigation and the invalidity of the termination of the prosecution based on the Notification Letter of Progress of the Investigation Results; the authority of the Pretrial Judge in ordering the Prosecutor’s Office to immediately transfer the case to trial; legal efforts that can be taken by the Prosecutor’s Office against the verdict ordering the Prosecutor’s Office to immediately transfer the case to trial. It uses a normative juridical method, theory of authority, theory of law enforcement, and theory of criminal justice system. The results of the study show that the Pretrial Judge has exceeded his authority and there has been a judicial error or a clear error in trying the object of the pretrial because the basis for submitting the pretrial application is the Notification Letter of Progress of Investigation Results and there has been no Letter of Termination either at the Investigation or Prosecution level. The Pretrial Judge has exceeded his authority and there has been a judicial error or a clear error in examining and deciding the case to immediately transfer the case files or continue the prosecution of the case to the trial because the one who can determine whether or not a prosecution of a case can be carried out is the Public Prosecutor as dominus litis.

The Modern Alternative Dispute Resolution was introduced into the world, as a form of method that would aid in alleviating the hardships and disadvantages of courtroom litigation, However, upon careful scrutiny of the systems that employ this method of dispute resolution; it comes to ones’ focus that the institutions are one-sided in the types of cases they entertain. Cases in point, which this write-up will center on, are the Lagos MultiDoor courthouse. These are one of the current institutions through which Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms are being practiced. However, a major drawback characterized by these alternative courts is that their jurisdictions are limited to resolving civil cases. In essence, the other most important aspect of the legal system is neglected, which is the criminal justice system i.e criminal cases. Criminal cases are out rightly excluded from reaping the benefits of this valuable and beneficial concept.A further research by this write-up brings into limelight certain processes within the criminal justice system which are similar to the ADR processes themselves. This article aims at highlighting these criminal law methods which will aid in resolving criminal disputes amicably and agreeably, just like the ADR processes. The mechanisms in focus will be plea bargaining, restorative justice and compoundable offences. The similarities between these methods and these of the ADR processes. The write-up will then look into how these criminal law processes can be incorporated and employed into the multi-Door courthouses. In order that the MDCs will have concurrent jurisdictions of both civil and criminal cases.

ABSTRACTBackgroundHealth and social care services increasingly recognise the value of involving people with lived experience in service design and delivery. For people who have experienced multiple disadvantage (combinations of homelessness, mental ill health, addiction, involvement with the criminal justice systems or domestic violence/abuse), participating in professional settings may be challenging and can risk re‐traumatisation and greater disillusionment. However, gaining confidence and competency to do this offers opportunities for personal and professional development, contributing to meaningful change. It is necessary that individuals with lived experience can engage safely and effectively in these settings. This study analyses how an organisation of people who have experienced multiple disadvantage, Independent Futures (IF), enabled co‐production within services and systems, to understand how people can be best supported and how involvement impacts them.MethodsSixteen IF members and three IF staff participated in semi‐structured interviews. A staff survey, at two time points, investigated how employees from Changing Futures partner organisations perceived their ability to embed co‐production within services, with 147 responses. Internal documentation was analysed to illustrate the diversity of co‐production work that IF contributed to.ResultsPutting trauma‐informed principles into practice facilitated personal growth, improved confidence and some work skills for IF members, who contributed to 65 different workstreams. However, embedding co‐production into wider services and systems proved challenging. Staff survey comments highlighted obstacles related to resources, time and hierarchical cultures.ConclusionLived experience organisations can model trauma‐informed practice and influence systems. Embedding trauma‐informed principles requires flexibility, openness and willingness that is sustainable only when everyone adopts and commits to these principles. Any evidence of tokenism destroys trust and undermines the endeavour.Public Contribution StatementThis study was co‐produced with people with lived experience of multiple disadvantage and staff participants. Two lived experience IF members were involved in: developing the funding bid, designing the research including designing the staff survey, developing interview topic guides, commenting on information sheets and developing interview arrangements to ensure comfort and safety of IF members. Four lived experience IF members and three members of staff contributed to writing the paper, including reviewing key literature, refining the analysis and developing the discussion and conclusion.

ABSTRACT This study examines how the criminal justice system processes juvenile school shooters, highlighting racial and ethnic disparities in their court processing experiences. Using data from The American School Shooting Study, we analyzed 189 juvenile (aged 6 to 17) school shooters’ court processing experiences, including arrest, prosecution, adjudication, and sentencing characteristics. Most were formally charged (n = 169), prosecuted in adult court (n = 121), and given custodial sentences (n = 120). Juveniles across all racial backgrounds frequently faced punitive charges, though Black defendants were over and underrepresented in receiving harsher and less punitive outcomes, highlighting the complexity of racial disparities in court outcomes. These findings suggest the criminal justice system may handle school shooters differently than other juvenile offenders, underscoring the need for further research.

Restricted patients and detention in the community: The human rights implications of supervised discharge under the Mental Health Bill 2025.

This study aims to examine the reasons why public prosecutors often proceed to the trial stage in many criminal tax cases. This study outlines the concept of discontinuing criminal tax cases based on state revenue through a reform approach to the criminal tax justice system. This study is a normative legal study. The results of the study show that the reasons prosecutors pursue cases even though the defendants have paid their tax debts and fines are: First, Attorney General's Guideline Number 2 of 2019 concerning Criminal Prosecution of Tax Cases. Second, the KUP Law does not regulate the termination of tax case prosecutions. Third, public prosecutors do not have the authority to terminate tax case prosecutions. Fourth, the Attorney General's Office Law does not clearly regulate cases that can be terminated in the public interest. The concept of discontinuing criminal prosecution of tax cases in the interests of state revenue for the renewal of the judicial system can be implemented in the following ways: First, after the indictment and case files have been transferred, the public prosecutor can negotiate with the defendant to ascertain whether the defendant regrets their actions. Second, if the defendant admits their guilt, the public prosecutor offers to return the taxes and fines owed. Third, if the defendant repays the taxes and tax penalties owed, the public prosecutor submits a request to the judge for termination of prosecution. Fourth, if the panel of judges approves, the public prosecutor prepares and submits a Letter of Termination of Prosecution to be signed by the Head of the District Attorney's Office.

This study aims to examine the extent to which wiretapping regulations in Indonesia prioritise the protection of privacy rights and how these regulations will be utilised to reform the criminal justice system in the future. This study is a normative legal analysis that employs a comparative approach, examining the laws of the United States and the United Kingdom. Based on the results of the study, it was concluded that wiretapping regulations in Indonesia do not yet provide protection of privacy rights and do not yet accommodate Constitutional Court Decision Number 006/PUU-I/2003 and Constitutional Court Decision Number/5/PUU-VIII/2010, which mandate that wiretapping regulations be regulated in a special law and uphold human rights. Based on a comparative study with the wiretapping legal systems in the United States and the United Kingdom, it was found that in order to achieve ideal wiretapping regulations, in addition to being regulated in a special law, there is also a need for checks and balances to prevent arbitrariness and rigid and biased rules, as well as stipulating that every wiretapping action must be proportional to the objectives to be achieved. There must also be a strict internal, external and independent monitoring system covering the application for authorisation, implementation and termination of wiretapping, with an emphasis on the protection of personal data and the privacy of citizens. In addition, the following aspects must also be reflected: a. Legality; b. Due process. Safeguards Against Illegitimate Access; and d. Legitimate Aims, Necessity and Proportionality

ABSTRACT This paper examines South Africa’s disability-friendliness from a criminal justice perspective, comparing it to Nigeria, Kenya, and Ghana. Despite South Africa’s progressive legal framework, including ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, significant barriers persist for persons with disabilities in accessing justice. These include societal stigma, inaccessible legal procedures, economic hardship, lack of accommodations, and insufficient training for justice system personnel. Additionally, the absence of inclusive communication tools, such as sign language interpreters and Braille documents, impedes effective participation in legal processes. Structural challenges, including inconsistent policy implementation, resource constraints, and fragmented coordination among stakeholders, further marginalise persons with disabilities. These issues result in exclusion from justice, vulnerability to abuse, and systemic discrimination. Using a qualitative, human rights-based approach, this study identifies recurring barriers through case studies, desktop research, and thematic analysis. The paper calls for policy reform, disability-sensitive training, and investment in accessible infrastructure and assistive technologies. While limitations such as geographic focus and reliance on self-reported data are acknowledged, the study offers a foundation for future research on comparative policy analysis, intersectionality, and technological solutions. Addressing these challenges is essential for building a more inclusive and equitable justice system in South Africa.

‘Crossover kids’ in Manitoba: The intersection of the child protection system, youth criminal justice system and First Nations identity

Preventive detention is a precautionary measure provided for in the Brazilian legal system, aimed at ensuring public order, securing the enforcement of criminal law, and preventing the accused from fleeing. Despite its exceptional nature, its excessive use in Brazil has generated serious legal, social, and penitentiary consequences, directly affected individuals’ fundamental rights and compromising the principle of the presumption of innocence. This study aims to analyze the impacts of the overuse of preventive detention, investigating how its frequent application contributes to prison overcrowding, undue anticipation of punishment, and violations of procedural guarantees. The research adopts a quantitative and exploratory approach, including a bibliographic survey and analysis of doctrines, legal norms, and recent jurisprudence. The methodology allows for an understanding of the theoretical foundations of preventive detention, as well as the identification of application patterns that disregard the rights of the accused. Furthermore, the study seeks to discuss legal alternatives and precautionary measures other than detention, in order to promote a more balanced criminal justice system compatible with constitutional rights. The results indicate that the excessive use of preventive detention represents not only a challenge to the effectiveness of justice but also a social problem, highlighting the need for public policies that encourage the adoption of proportional measures respectful of fundamental rights. Thus, the study contributes to the legal and social debate on the rational use of preventive detention and the preservation of the presumption of innocence.