Restorative Justice In Indonesian Criminal Code: Navigating Fragmentation And Lessons From Malaysia And The United States
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15294/pandecta.v20i2.18605Keywords:
Harmonization, Indonesian Criminal Code Restorative JusticeAbstract
Restorative justice is an approach to criminal case resolution that prioritizes restoration over retribution by involving victims, offenders, their families, and other relevant parties in a participatory process. This study examines the development of restorative justice in Indonesia, particularly its incorporation into the new Indonesian Criminal Code, using a normative legal method combined with a comparative study of practices in the United States and Malaysia. The novelty of this research lies in its focus on Indonesia’s unique regulatory challenges, specifically the persistence of regulatory dissonance due to fragmented implementing regulations and inconsistent law enforcement practices, and in offering a comparative perspective on how harmonized policies in other jurisdictions can provide solutions. The findings reveal that, although the new Code formally accommodates restorative justice principles, the lack of harmonization has resulted in unclear guidelines, varied field applications, and suboptimal victim recovery. Victims often experience confusion in accessing restorative mechanisms, while law enforcement officers face obstacles due to inadequate training and the absence of unified standards. To address these challenges, this paper recommends policy harmonization at all governmental levels, the establishment of coordinated guidelines across law enforcement agencies, and the enhancement of institutional capacity through specialized training. By drawing lessons from the cohesive frameworks adopted in the United States and Malaysia, this study contributes to the existing literature by highlighting the importance of harmonized policies to ensure legal certainty, consistency, and better restorative justice outcomes for both victims and offenders in Indonesia.
References
Abdurrakhman Alhakim; Emiliya Febriani and Atila Jeny Febria. “Kebijakan Restorative Justice Dalam Upaya Penyelesaian Tindak Pidana Anak Di Berbagai Negara.” Hukum Renponsif 15, no. 1 (2024): 1–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33603/responsif.v15i1.8903.
Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Republik Indonesia. “Naskah Akademik Rancangan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana,” 2015. https://bphn.go.id/data/documents/naskah_akademik_tentang_kuhp_dengan_lampiran.pdf.
Cindy Holder and David Reidy. Human Rights: The Hard Questions - Google Books. England: Cambrige University Press, 2013.
Dicky Eko Prasetio et al. “The Legal Pluralism Strategy of Sendi Traditional Court in the Era of Modernization Law.” Rechtsidee 8, no. 10 (2021): 1–12. https://doi.org/ttps://doi.org/10.21070/jihr.2021.8.702.
Eko Riyadi. Hukum Hak Asasi Manusia. Jakarta: Rajagrafindo Persada, 2020.
Flora, Henny Saida. “Keadilan Restoratif Sebagai Alternatif Dalam Penyelesaian Tindak Pidana Dan Pengaruhnya Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Di Indonesia.” UBELAJ 3, no. 2 (2018): 142–58. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33369/ubelaj.3.2.142-158.
Hamid S. Attamimi. “Teori Perundang-Undangan Di Indonesia.” 8, 1992.
Humas dan Kerjasama. “BPHN Sosialisasikan KUHP Baru Di Sekolah Tinggi Hukum Militer.” Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional, 2024. https://bphn.go.id/berita-utama/bphn-sosialisasikan-kuhp-baru-di-sekolah-tinggi-hukum-militer.
Low & PartnersLow & Partners. “Criminal Procedure Code,” 2024. https://www.lowpartners.com/criminal-procedure-code-part-3/.
M. Ali Zaidan. Menuju Pembaruan Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2015.
M. Alvin Syahrin. “Penerapan Prinsip Keadilan Restoratif Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Terpadu.” Majalah Hukum Nasional 48, no. 1 (2018): 97–114. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33331/mhn.v48i1.114.
MA RI Pengadilan Negeri Gunung Sitoli. “Prosedur Gugatan Sederhana,” 2024. https://www.pn-gunungsitoli.go.id/prosedurgugatansederhana.
Manthovani, Reda. “Tantangan Mengharmonisasi Restorative Justice Dalam Ius Constituendum Antar Penegak Hukum.” Hukum Online, 2024. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/tantangan-mengharmonisasi-restorative-justice-dalam-ius-constituendum-antar-penegak-hukum-lt6684ef9454254/.
Maroni. “Problema Penggantian Hukum-Hukum Kolonial Dengan Hukum-Hukum Nasional Sebagai Politik Hukum.” Dinamika Hukum 12, no. 1 (2012): 85–96. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2012.12.1.199.
Martin D. Schwartz and Suzanne E. Hatty. “Controversies in Critical Criminology.” Controversies in Critical Criminology, 2014. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315722047/CONTROVERSIES-CRITICAL-CRIMINOLOGY-MARTIN-SCHWARTZ-SUZANNE-HATTY/ACCESSIBILITY-INFORMATION.
Nurhardianto, Fajar. “Sistem Hukum Dan Posisi Hukum Indonesia.” Jurnal Tapis 11, no. 1 (2024): 7. https://doi.org/https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/132702-ID-sistem-hukum-dan-posisi-hukum-indonesia.pdf.
Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1 Tahun 2024 Tentang Pedoman Mengadili Perkara Pidana Berdasarkan Keadilan Restoratif (n.d.).
Renata, Naomi. “Kedudukan Perdamaian Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana.” Pengadilan Negeri Sumedang Kelas IB, 2024. https://pn-sumedang.go.id/kedudukan-perdamaian-dalam-sistem-peradilan-pidana.
Robert M Paterson. Tafsiran Alkitab: Kitab Keluaran. Jakarta: BPK Gunung Mulia, 2006.
Shannon M. Sliva Elizabeth H. “Fulfilling The Aspirations Of Restorative Justice In The Criminal System? The Case Of Colorado.” Course Hero Journal Of Policy Practice, 2015, 72. https://www.coursehero.com/file/53628456/Shannon-Silvapdf/.
Sophian Haryanto; Ida Musofiana and Achmad Sultan. “Perbandingan Sistem Hukum Restorative Justice Indonesia Dan Amerika.” researchgate, 2024. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382062400_PERBADINGAN_SISTEM_HUKUM_RESTORATIVE_JUSTICE_INDONESIA_DAN_AMERIKA.
Thalia González. “The Legalization of Restorative Justice: A Fifty-State Empirical Analysis.” Utah Law Review, no. 5 (2019): 1027–2019. https://doi.org/https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2019/iss5/3/.
Tim Icce Uin Jakarta. Demokrasi, Hak Asasi Manusia Dan Masyarakat Madani. Jakarta: Prenada Media, 2003.
Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2012 Tentang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak (n.d.).
Zehr, Howard. “Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice.” Herald Press, 1990. https://www.unodc.org/e4j/data/_university_uni_/changing_lenses_a_new_focus_for_crime_and_justice.html?lng=en
Downloads
Published
Article ID
18605Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Abiandri Fikri Akbar (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) is an open-access license that facilitates the sharing and adaptation of creative works while ensuring proper attribution and preserving the same freedoms for derivative works. This license is designed to be user-friendly and applicable globally, making it a popular choice for a wide range of content, from academic articles to creative arts.
At its core, the Attribution component of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license requires users to give appropriate credit to the original creator of the work. This includes providing a clear citation, linking to the license, and indicating any modifications made. The attribution must be done in a way that does not imply endorsement by the creator of the new use or its creator. This ensures that the original authors are acknowledged for their contributions while allowing their work to be freely used and disseminated.
The ShareAlike aspect of the license mandates that any derivative works or adaptations created from the original must be licensed under the same CC BY-SA 4.0 terms. This means that new works based on the original content must also be freely available and shareable under the same conditions. This provision helps to promote a culture of collaboration and continuous improvement, as it ensures that all adaptations remain accessible to the public and contribute to the collective pool of knowledge and creativity.
