<![CDATA[The handling of minor offenses is at the intersection between the demands of formal legality and the need for substantive justice at the community level. In this context, the discretion of law enforcement officials is an important instrument to prevent over-criminalization, reduce the burden on the justice system, and open up more restorative resolution space. However, the absence of firm normative boundaries and weak accountability mechanisms make discretion vulnerable to social bias, disparity in treatment, and the reproduction of power imbalances. This study aims to analyze discretionary practices in resolving minor offense cases through a socio-legal perspective that places law as a social practice influenced by cultural, political, and power relations structures. Using a socio-legal approach, this study combines a normative analysis of the legal framework that governs discretion with empirical studies through in-depth interviews and observations of law enforcement practices at the field level. The findings of the study suggest that discretion contributes significantly to the effectiveness of the justice system and the restoration of social relations, but at the same time creates a space for power negotiation that has the potential to erode the principle of equality before the law. The inconsistency of the standard of application and the dominance of the subjective considerations of the apparatus show that discretion is not just a technical instrument, but a social arena full of values and interests. Therefore, this study emphasizes the urgency of establishing human rights-based operational guidelines, strengthening participatory oversight systems, and integrating restorative justice principles in law enforcement policies, in order to ensure that discretion functions as a means of social justice, not a source of legal uncertainty.]]>
