Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal IUS (Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan) Aceh Journal of Animal Science
Hendri Antoro
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
The Effectiveness of the Jones/Davis Type By-Catch Reduction Device (BRD) to Reduce Unintended Catch of Trawl Fisheries Andhika Prima Prasetyo; Rudy M. Purwoko; Hendri Antoro
Aceh Journal of Animal Science Vol 2, No 2: December 2017
Publisher : Syiah Kuala University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (468.194 KB) | DOI: 10.13170/ajas.2.2.6860

Abstract

Reduction by-catch of commercial fishing are become major concern, especially prawn trawl fisheries. By-catch reduction device developed to address that issue. However, there were trade-off problems regarding the implementation the BRD in trawl fisheries that is the effectiveness of the BRD. The performance of BRD was questionable on the effectiveness in term of reduction the by-catch and maintenance amount of target catch. This essay examines the performance of Jones-Davis type BRD to reduce by-catch and its impact to prawn catch in Cleveland Bay. An experimental fishing has been conducted (control-net and BRD-net; Pair-trawl method) to assess the effectiveness of by-catch reduction which examined with Wilcoxon Rank Test. The result shows that trawl equipped by BRD significantly reduce by-catch by 22.2% (Z = -4.6406, p-value = 0.0001) and retained prawn catch which was no significant difference inprawn catch between BRD and control nets (Z = -1.9218, p-value = 0.0546). Therefore, that evidence could be argued to convince about the BRD benefits to commercial prawn trawl fisheries.
Admissibility of Artificial Intelligence as Electronic Evidence: Comparative Perspectives from Indonesia, the United States, and Japan Hendri Antoro; Danrivanto Budhijanto; Somawijaya
Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan Vol. 14 No. 1 (2026): Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan (in progress)
Publisher : Magister of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Mataram

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29303/ius.v14i1.1880

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into digital forensic and evidentiary processes, raising unresolved doctrinal questions in criminal procedure law. In Indonesia, although electronic evidence is formally recognized, the law does not yet provide specific admissibility standards for AI-based materials, particularly regarding authenticity, methodological reliability, process traceability, explainability, and accountability. This study examines the admissibility of AI as electronic evidence in Indonesia and compares it with legal approaches in the United States and Japan. This study employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches to analyze the evidentiary frameworks of the three jurisdictions. The findings show that the United States emphasizes expert gatekeeping and digital authentication, while Japan adopts a softer regulatory model centered on traceability, documentation, and actor accountability. By contrast, Indonesia, still lacks specific procedural standards for assessing AI-generated outputs beyond the general recognition of electronic evidence. This article argues that the key legal issue is no longer whether electronic evidence is admissible in general, but how AI-based evidence should be evaluated in a legally reliable and accountable manner. The scientific contribution of this study lies in proposing a five-parameter evaluative model for AI admissibility—covering authenticity and integrity, process traceability, model performance, identity verification, and accountability. This model is offered as a normative reference for future reform of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, while safeguarding legal certainty and justice.
Co-Authors Andhika Prima Prasetyo Danrivanto Budhijanto Rudy M. Purwoko Somawijaya