Reconciliation in Modern Penal Policy: a Strategy for Removing Guilt and Criminal Responsibility
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15294/ijcls.v11i1.34366Keywords:
Reconciliation, Penal Policy, Guilt, Criminal ResponsibilityAbstract
The Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP), enacted on December 6, 2022, establishes the principles of guilt and criminal responsibility in Article 36, while simultaneously expanding the scope of criminal liability beyond the requirement of the offender's fault. This provision opens the possibility of imposing criminal liability without fault (strict liability). In relation to the termination of prosecution, the KUHP also accommodates the settlement of disputes outside the court through a reconciliation mechanism. The inclusion of this provision has encouraged the researcher to examine the fundamental idea of out-of-court dispute resolution through reconciliation, and to conceptualize the ideal mechanism of reconciliation as a penal policy for eliminating guilt and criminal responsibility within the framework of modern penal policy. This study employs a normative juridical approach. The findings indicate, first, that the fundamental idea of out-of-court dispute resolution through reconciliation lies in harmonization, the protection of victims, and the avoidance of the negative impacts of imprisonment. Second, the reconciliation mechanism must be carefully considered, and this research proposes a categorization of out-of-court dispute resolution in order to provide legal certainty.
References
Al, joanna Shapland et. “Situating Restorative Justice within Criminal Justice.” Theoretical Criminology 10, no. 4 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480606068876.
Alef Musyahadah, R. “Kedudukan Perdamaian Antara Korban Dengan Pelaku Tindak Pidana Dalam Sistem Pemidanaan.” University Diponegoro, 2005.
Antonius, Sudirman. Hati Nurani Hakim Dan Putusannya: Suatu Pendekatan Dari Perspektif Ilmu Hukum Perilaku (Bahavioral Jurisprudence) Kasus Hakim Bismar Siregar. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 2007.
Arief, Barda Nawawi. Mediasi Penal: Penyelesaian Perkara Pidana Di Luar Pengadilan. Semarang: Pusaka Magister, 2010.
Ashworth, Andrew. Sentencing and Criminal Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Atmasasmita, Romli. Teori Hukum Integratif, Rekonstruksi Terhadap Teori Hukum Pembangunan Dan Teori Hukum Progresif. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing, 2012.
Barbara A., Hudson. Understanding Justice An Introduction to Ideas, Perspectives and Controversies in Modern Penal Theory. Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1996.
Braithwaite, John. Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
———. Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Budi, Suhariyanto. “Kedudukan Perdamaian Sebagai Penghapus Pemidanaan Guna Mewujudkan Keadilan Dalam Pembaruan Hukum Pidana.” Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional 6, no. 1 (2017). https://dx.doi.org/10.33331/rechtsvinding.v6i1.127.
Cavadino, Michael, and James Dignan. The Penal System: An Introduction. 4th ed. London: Sage Publications, 2007.
Cavadino, Michael, and James Dignan. The Penal System: An Introduction. 5th ed. London: Sage Publications, 2013.
Duff, Antony. Penal Theory and Practice: Tradition and Innovation in Criminal Justice. Oxford: Manchester University Press, 1994.
Foote, Daniel H. “The Benevolent Paternalism of Japanese Criminal Justice.” California Law Review 80, no. 2 (1992). https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38GQ7Q.
Haley, John O. Authority without Power: Law and the Japanese Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Johnson, David T. The Japanese Way of Justice: Prosecuting Crime in Japan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Johson, David T. “Japan’s Prosecution System.” Crime and Justice 41, no. 1 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1086/665409.
M Ali, Zaidan. “Dari Rehabilitasi Menuju Rekonsiliasi (Kasus Kelompok Rentan Berhadapan Dengan Hukum).” Doctrinal 1, no. 2 (2016).
Milhizert, Eugene R. “Justification And Excuse : What They Were, What They Are, And What They Ought To Be.” St. John’s Law Review 78, no. 3 (2004).
Muhammad, Abdulkadir. Hukum Dan Penelitian Hukum. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 2004.
Muladi. Kapita Selekta Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro, 1995.
Naomi, Renata Manihuruk. “Kedudukan Perdamaian Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana,” 2020.
Natangsa, Surbakti. Peradilan Restoratif: Dalam Bingkai Empiris, Teori Dan Kebijakan. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing, 2015.
Priskila Ginting, Yuni. “Penyelesaian Perkara Pidana Di Luar Pengadilan Berdasarkan Asas Ultimum Remedium.” The Prosecutor Law Review 02, no. 1 (2024): 73–94.
Roxin, Claus. Criminal Law: General Part, Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Rusjdi, Ali Muhammad. “Upaya Perdamaian Untuk Penyelesaian Perkara Pidana: Reaktualisasi Kearifan Lokal Dalam Hukum Pidana Indonesia.” Legitimasi: Jurnal Hukum Pidana Dan Politik Hukum 10, no. 2 (2021).https://doi.org/10.22373/legitimasi.v10i2.11339.
Salsabila Ayu, Pramita. “Penerapan Restorative Justice Dalam Penologi Modern: Alternatif Pemidanaan Di Era Reformasi Hukum.” Jurnal Kajian Hukum Dan Kebijakan Publik 2, no. 2 (2025). https://doi.org/10.62379/dj83v892.
Soekanto, Soerjono, and Sri Mamudji. Penelitian Hukum Normatif (Suatu Tinjauan Singkat). Jakarta: Rajawali Press, 2006.
Soponyono, Eko. “Kebijakan Perumusan Sistem Pemidanaan Yang Berorientasi Pada Korban.” Masalah-Masalah Hukum 41, no. 1 (2012): 29–41. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.41.1.2012.29-41.
Theo, Huijbers. Filsafat Hukum Dalam Lintasan Sejarah. Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 1982.
Tony F. Marshall. Restorative Justice: An Overview. London: Home Office, 1999.
Zehr, Howard. The Little Book of Restorative Justice. New York: Good Books, 2002.
Downloads
Published
Article ID
34366Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Umi Rozah, Heru Susetyo, Aldi Yudistira, Jaco Barkhuizen (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
