<![CDATA[Abstrak Penelitian ini menyoroti kurangnya efektivitas penyelenggaraan pemerintahan dan pengadilan di Indonesia yang mendorong resolusi dalam mengadopsi Restorative Justice sebagai solusi lebih efektif dalam penyelesaian perkara peradilan. Namun solusi ini dipandang memiliki sisi baik dan sisi buruknya juga. Penelitian memunculkan pandangan pro dan kontra dalam masyarakat hukum. Penelitian menggunakan metode penelitian normatif yuridis dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach), peneliti mengkaji implementasi Restorative Justice secara menyeluruh. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Restorative Justice berfokus pada pendekatan pemulihan daripada pembalasan. Meskipun demikian, penerapannya belum sepenuhnya berhasil dalam lingkup peradilan di Indonesia. Terdapat dua pandangan yang kuat: Pro Restorative Justice menyebutkan manfaatnya dalam menyelesaikan Over Capacity di lapas, menciptakan keadilan monodualistik, dan meningkatkan efisiensi penegak hukum. Sementara itu, pihak kontra berpendapat bahwa Restorative Justice berpotensi memberi peluang bagi pelaku untuk mengulangi tindak pidana, kurang memberikan perlindungan kepada korban, dan minim pemahaman masyarakat terhadap konsepnya. Kata Kunci: Restorative Justice, Pro-Kontra, Keadilan & Peradilan Abstract This research highlights the lack of effectiveness of government and court administration in Indonesia which encourages resolutions in adopting Restorative Justice as a more effective solution in resolving judicial cases. However, this solution is seen as having both good sides and bad sides. Research raises views of the pros and cons in the legal community. Research uses the normative juridical research methods with a statutory approach and a case approach, where researchers examine the implementation of Restorative Justice as a whole. The research results show that Restorative Justice focuses on a recovery approach rather than retaliation. However, its implementation has not been completely successful in the judiciary in Indonesia. There are two strong views: Pro-Restorative Justice states its benefits in resolving overcapacity in prisons, creating monodualistic justice, and increasing the efficiency of law enforcement. Meanwhile, opposing parties argue that Restorative Justice has the potential to provide opportunities for perpetrators to repeat criminal acts, provides less protection for victims, and lacks public understanding of the concept. Keywords: Restorative Justice, Pro-Con, Justice & Judiciary]]>
