<![CDATA[Can restorative justice be applied to corruption cases without weakening law enforcement and encouraging impunity? Restorative justice is generally applied in minor criminal cases to restore victims’ losses. However, its proposed application in corruption cases in Indonesia has sparked debate regarding its effectiveness and legal implications. This study employs a normative comparativelegal approach, examines the benefits and risks of restorative justice for perpetrators of corruption and compares it with practices in Brazil, Colombia, and South Africa. While this approach has the potential to expedite the recovery of state assets, without strict regulation, it may undermine deterrence and encourage impunity. Furthermore, regulatory challenges and the need for an ideal implementation mechanism are key concerns to ensure that such a policy does not weaken law enforcement efforts. Unlike previous studies by Pelengkahu and Indirwan (2022), Faharuddin and Hakim (2023), and Franata and Santiago (2023), which tend to adoptconceptual or normative approaches, this article offers a practical framework by proposing stringent technical parameters, including a minimum asset recovery of 200%, mandatory minimum sentences, and the revocation of political rights for offenders. This study presents a substantial contribution to the ongoing legal debate. In addition to offering a contextual policy perspective for Indonesia, the article also provides value for international readers, particularly in understanding the dynamics of applying restorative justice to extraordinary crimes such as corruption in developing countries. The findings and recommendations herein may stimulate cross-country comparative research and broaden the global discourse on balancing state asset recovery with firm legal enforcement.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
