Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.562
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal PENA LAW: International Journal of Law
Sineenart Suasoongnern
Rajamangala University Of Technology Krungthep, Thailand
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
Overcriminalization in the Modern Criminal Justice System: A Threat to the Principles of Legality and Substantive Justice: Overcriminalization in the Modern Criminal Justice System: A Threat to the Principles of Legality and Substantive Justice Agus Kelana Putra; Kristiawanto Kristiawanto; Sineenart Suasoongnern
PENA LAW: International Journal of Law Vol. 4 No. 1 (2026): May
Publisher : Yayasan Pusat Cendekiawan Intelektual Nusantara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56107/penalaw.v4i1.285

Abstract

Overcriminalization has become a systemic problem in modern legal systems, characterized by a tendency to use criminal law excessively to regulate various social behaviors. This study critically examines how the expansion of criminal law—both in scope and intensity—can threaten the principle of legality and undermine substantive justice. Using a normative qualitative approach, this study applies doctrinal and comparative legal analysis to three jurisdictions: Indonesia, the United States, and Germany. Primary sources include legislation and court decisions, while secondary data is obtained from academic literature and institutional reports. The findings reveal that overcriminalization often results in vague legal norms, disproportionate sanctions, and selective law enforcement—particularly affecting vulnerable groups. The study reveals that this trend has eroded legal certainty and turned criminal law into a political and moral tool. By integrating penal minimalism theory, justice theory, and legal positivism, this article offers normative parameters in the form of necessity, proportionality, and the principle of ultimum remedium to recalibrate the boundaries of legitimate criminalization. This research contributes to contemporary academic discourse by providing a structured analytical framework and concrete policy recommendations to strengthen the legitimacy and fairness of the modern criminal justice system.
Overcriminalization in the Modern Criminal Justice System: A Threat to the Principles of Legality and Substantive Justice: Overcriminalization in the Modern Criminal Justice System: A Threat to the Principles of Legality and Substantive Justice Agus Kelana Putra; Kristiawanto Kristiawanto; Sineenart Suasoongnern
PENA LAW: International Journal of Law Vol. 4 No. 1 (2026): May
Publisher : Yayasan Pusat Cendekiawan Intelektual Nusantara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56107/penalaw.v4i1.289

Abstract

Overcriminalization has become a systemic problem in modern legal systems, characterized by a tendency to use criminal law excessively to regulate various social behaviors. This study critically examines how the expansion of criminal law—both in scope and intensity—can threaten the principle of legality and undermine substantive justice. Using a normative qualitative approach, this study applies doctrinal and comparative legal analysis to three jurisdictions: Indonesia, the United States, and Germany. Primary sources include legislation and court decisions, while secondary data is obtained from academic literature and institutional reports. The findings reveal that overcriminalization often results in vague legal norms, disproportionate sanctions, and selective law enforcement—particularly affecting vulnerable groups. The study reveals that this trend has eroded legal certainty and turned criminal law into a political and moral tool. By integrating penal minimalism theory, justice theory, and legal positivism, this article offers normative parameters in the form of necessity, proportionality, and the principle of ultimum remedium to recalibrate the boundaries of legitimate criminalization. This research contributes to contemporary academic discourse by providing a structured analytical framework and concrete policy recommendations to strengthen the legitimacy and fairness of the modern criminal justice system.
Legislation and the Constitutional Court: Reconciling Constitutional Justice and Democratic Accountability in Comparative Constitutional Law: Legislation and the Constitutional Court: Reconciling Constitutional Justice and Democratic Accountability in Comparative Constitutional Law Muhammad Rum Siolimbona; Hedwig Adianto Mau; Sineenart Suasoongnern
PENA LAW: International Journal of Law Vol. 4 No. 1 (2026): May
Publisher : Yayasan Pusat Cendekiawan Intelektual Nusantara

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56107/penalaw.v4i1.294

Abstract

The dynamic relationship between legislation and constitutional courts has become a key issue in modern constitutional law. Legislation, reflecting democratic legitimacy, often faces challenges when political majorities pass laws that may threaten constitutional rights and the rule of law principles. Conversely, constitutional courts act as guardians of constitutional supremacy, ensuring that laws align with fundamental constitutional values. This study uses a normative juridical and comparative approach, analyzing constitutional texts, legislation, and landmark judicial decisions from Indonesia, Germany, South Africa, and South Korea. Through content analysis, comparative legal methods, and hermeneutic interpretation, the research shows that constitutional courts worldwide do not just correct unconstitutional laws but also play a constructive role in fostering democratic accountability. The findings emphasize that the relationship between legislation and constitutional courts should not be seen as adversarial; rather, it is a dialectical and symbiotic interaction that promotes constitutional democracy. The novelty of this research lies in its global comparative perspective, moving beyond country-specific analyses and suggesting a conceptual framework for understanding how legislative legitimacy and constitutional justice reinforce each other. This study contributes both to theoretical debates in comparative constitutional law and offers practical recommendations for improving judicial review and legislative processes in democratic systems.
Co-Authors Agus Kelana Putra Agus Kelana Putra Hedwig Adianto Mau Kristiawanto Kristiawanto Kristiawanto Kristiawanto Muhammad Rum Siolimbona