<![CDATA[Indonesia mandates diversion as a form of restorative justice; however, Article 7 paragraph (2) of the Juvenile Criminal Justice System Law limits its application to offenses punishable by imprisonment of less than seven years and excludes recidivist offenders. This limitation is reflected in the 0% success rate of diversion at the Samarinda District Court throughout 2024 and its disharmony with Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2014. Using a doctrinal approach supported by field interviews with law enforcement officials in Samarinda, this study analyzes the grounds for considering the application of diversion to children facing criminal charges carrying penalties of more than seven years of imprisonment and formulates a regulatory reformulation. The findings indicate that the application of diversion may be considered from philosophical grounds (doli incapax, ultimum remedium, and restorative justice), juridical grounds (CRC, the Beijing Rules, and Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2014), sociological grounds (family conditions, poverty, peer pressure, and exposure to digital media), and psychological grounds (children's cognitive and emotional immaturity, as well as the risks of prisonization and labeling). This study proposes a reformulation of Article 7 paragraph (2) to allow diversion to be applied to offenses carrying a penalty of seven years of imprisonment or more, provided that the formulated parameters are met.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
