Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 12 Documents
Search

Effectiveness of Detention by Public Prosecutors Against Perpetrators of Criminal Acts Agus Salim; Achmad Faishal; Suprapto Suprapto
Law and Justice research journal Vol. 2 No. 1 (2026): January: Law and Justice research journal
Publisher : International Forum of Researchers and Lecturers

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70062/ljrj.v2i1.120

Abstract

Detention is one of the most coercive measures in the criminal justice process and is intended to ensure the effectiveness of criminal proceedings. In many legal systems, public prosecutors are granted authority to order detention against suspects or defendants under specific legal requirements. However, the practical effectiveness of detention by public prosecutors in achieving procedural objectives and safeguarding legal rights remains a subject of debate. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of detention carried out by public prosecutors against perpetrators of criminal acts, focusing on its legal basis, implementation, and impact on the criminal justice process. Using a normative juridical approach supported by qualitative analysis of legislation, legal doctrines, and relevant case studies, this research evaluates whether prosecutorial detention fulfills principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and human rights protection. The findings indicate that while detention by public prosecutors can enhance procedural efficiency and prevent obstruction of justice, its effectiveness is often constrained by inconsistencies in application, weak judicial oversight, and potential risks of arbitrary detention. This study concludes that strengthening legal safeguards, standardizing detention criteria, and enhancing accountability mechanisms are essential to ensure that detention by public prosecutors remains both effective and compliant with the rule of law.
Reconstruction of the Abolition of Compensation Pay-ments Towards Justice for Convicts Aji Sumbara; Achmad Faishal; Suprapto Suprapto
Law and Justice research journal Vol. 2 No. 1 (2026): January: Law and Justice research journal
Publisher : International Forum of Researchers and Lecturers

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70062/ljrj.v2i1.121

Abstract

This study explores the reconstruction of the abolition of compensation payments to foster justice for convicts, specifically evaluating the intersection between Law No. 31 of 1999 and Law No. 20 of 2001. The research addresses the persistent legal dilemma where state loss recovery mechanisms often overlook the fundamental rights and socio-economic realities of prisoners. Under the current regime, the imposition of substitute imprisonment for unpaid financial obligations is perceived as a "layered punishment" that undermines human dignity and fails to reflect proportional justice. The analysis reveals that the retributive orientation established in Law No. 31 of 1999 results in a "lose-lose" outcome: the state remains uncompensated while the financial burden of correctional costs increases due to extended incarceration. By integrating the fiscal and state financial management principles found in Law No. 20 of 2001, this research proposes a shift toward more proportional and restorative asset recovery. The study concludes that the role of the Prosecutor must be reoriented toward accurate asset tracing and the implementation of humane payment schemes. Future legal reforms must ensure that the state's interest in fiscal restoration does not sacrifice the convict's basic rights, prioritizing distributive justice to create a more humane anti-corruption framework.