Current Criminal System Research Articles

Juridical Analysis of Criminal Act Handling Based on Restorative Justice in Resolving Attempted Murder Cases (Research Study at Lingga Resort Police)

This thesis is entitled Juridical Analysis of Handling Criminal Acts Based on Restorative Justice in Resolving Cases of Attempted Murder (Research Study at the Lingga Resort Police). The formulation of the problem is how the law is regulated and also how it is implemented, obstacles and efforts to overcome obstacles in handling criminal acts based on restorative justice in solving the attempted murder case. The aim is to find out legal regulations and their implementation, obstacles and efforts to overcome them. This research uses empirical (field) legal research and normative legal (literature) research. Using research methods consisting of 2 forms. Namely normative law or doctrine and empirical or sociological law. The normative is through applicable articles and the empirical is through interviews. The results of research on resolving criminal acts using a restorative justice approach aim to resolve conflicts that occur between perpetrators and victims and avoid negative effects arising from the current criminal system. Some jurisdictions may have special restorative justice programs designed for attempted murder cases. These programs can involve meetings between perpetrators and victims, as well as community participation, with the aim of promoting understanding, resolution, and reconciliation. Implementation of restorative justice in attempted murder cases can be carried out in stages.

Non-Procedural Dispute Resolution: Study of the Restorative Justice Approach Tradition in Indonesian Society.

The Indonesian Muslim community is familiar with restorative justice. The substance of restorative justice is building joint participation between perpetrators and victims through third parties. The objectives of this study are: to describe restorative justice in the traditions of Indonesian Muslim society and to examine the relevance of restorative justice for the settlement of criminal cases in the future. This research uses a philosophical approach, namely legal construction at an ideal level in the future. The results show that the restorative justice approach has strong roots in Indonesian Muslim society, namely deliberation to reach a consensus. Deliberative institutions are held to find solutions that can satisfy all parties. In the future, restoration justice needs to be applied in Indonesia in resolving criminal cases, especially crimes against life. The restorative justice approach offers a different view from the approach applied in the current criminal system.

Research on Legal Liability of Unmanned Driving

The arrival of the era of driverless driving has impacted the relationship between people and vehicles with drivers as the core in the traditional sense, which makes the driver's obligations gradually shift to the new product of driverless cars, and makes it difficult for driverless cars to be applied to the traditional motor vehicle imputation system regulated by the "motor vehicle side", which makes the traffic charges fail under the current criminal system. The existing legal system is aimed at the gaps in the application of some laws inevitably brought about by the development of traditional motor vehicles,It is necessary to standardize and allocate relevant specific responsibilities from the perspectives of civil, administrative and criminal law, and analyze the development direction of relevant supporting systems of driverless technology from the perspective of responsibility allocation and commitment from different legal angles.

The System of Proof on Extraordinary Crime in Case Criminal Which Based on the Intelligent Investigation Report (A Case Study)

Terrorism is an extraordinary crime which is transnational activity that is way to combat terrorism not an easy operation, what more difficult and need highly activity and hardly unable to catch the terrorist, due process of it and challenging current criminal system procedure, whiles the burden of proof in terrorism is very complicated. Based on recent experience in Indonesia, due process of law for the act of terrorism does use the ordinary criminal system of procedure law, which does not adopt the intelligence investigation report as evidence based. In other word the law of criminal procedure act does not qualify yet or not clearly amend the intelligence report as clear convincing evidence. This study is tried to explore this gap on what other legal tool can be used to challenge this hole. What common practices is used to render this problem and what adjudge has been follow recently to this matter of law. The methodology in study this issues by collecting (i) all information related facts of intelligence operation analysis in formed part by part information followed by field cross-check examination, (ii) managing the crime of terrorism as extraordinary one and as the transnational of Crime against humanity based on the article 184 Criminal Procedure Act, with add some strong clues about terrorism activity as an preliminary evidence to continuing the depth investigation has been regulated according to article 26 Act No. 15 Year 2003 Regarding to The Prevention of Terrorism.(iii) By using intelligence investigation report as evidence the system of proof will bring some developing method for the law to foster the burden of proof system and may deter the crime of terrorism. As a conclusion this study may contribute some ways or other method of proof involving the extraordinary crime on terrorism which not been adopted by current law and system. Keywords : burden of proof, evidence and terrorism, intelligence investigation DOI : 10.7176/JLPG/90-15 Publication date :October 31 st 2019

The Consensus Myth in Criminal Justice Reform

It has become popular to identify a “consensus” on criminal justice reform, but how deep is that consensus, actually? This Article argues that the purported consensus is much more limited than it initially appears. Despite shared reformist vocabulary, the consensus rests on distinct critiques that identify different flaws and justify distinct policy solutions. The underlying disagreements transcend traditional left/right political divides and speak to deeper disputes about the state and the role of criminal law in society. The Article maps two prevailing, but fundamentally distinct, critiques of criminal law: (1) the quantitative approach (what I call the “over” frame); and (2) the qualitative approach (what I call the “mass” frame). The “over” frame grows from a belief that criminal law has an important and legitimate function, but that the law’s operations have exceeded that function. This critique assumes that there are optimal rates of incarceration and criminalization, but the current criminal system is suboptimal in that it has criminalized too much and incarcerated too many. In contrast, the “mass” frame focuses on criminal law as a sociocultural phenomenon. This reformist frame indicates that the issue is not a mere miscalculation; rather, reforms should address how the system marginalizes populations and exacerbates both power imbalances and distributional inequities. To show how these frames differ, this Article applies the “over” and the “mass” critique, in turn, to the maligned phenomena of mass incarceration and overcriminalization. The existing literature on mass incarceration and overcriminalization displays an elision between these two frames. Some scholars and reformers have adopted one frame exclusively, while others use the two interchangeably. No matter how much scholars and critics bemoan the troubles of mass incarceration and overcriminalization, it is hard to believe that they can achieve meaningful reform if they are talking about fundamentally different problems. While many scholars may adopt an “over” frame in an effort to attract a broader range of support or appeal to politicians, “over” policy proposals do not necessarily reach deeper “mass” concerns. Ultimately, this Article argues that a pragmatic turn to the “over” frame may have significant costs in legitimating deeper structural flaws and failing to address distributional issues of race, class, and power at the heart of the “mass” critique.