<![CDATA[The research examines the juridical reasons in the Jambi District Court Judge's Decision involving a child perpetrator who was charged with abuse that resulted in death. There is a significant gap between prosecutors' demands, which are based on retributive justice, and court decisions that emphasize restorative justice. These differences illustrate the normative tension between punitive approaches and the protection of children's rights. Using a normative juridical method with a case study approach, this research explores judges making legal discoveries through teleological interpretation and normative construction to reconcile conflicting legal paradigms. Results Discussion shows that courts prioritize restorative measures, including probation and social obligations, over prison sentences. This approach is not only in line with international trends in juvenile justice but also demonstrates the active role of judges in filling legal gaps by integrating classical criminal law with modern restorative principles. The conclusion is that these decisions strengthen the restorative paradigm in juvenile justice, although there are still challenges in ensuring consistency, balancing victims' rights, and meeting society's demands for retribution. The implications highlight the need for harmonization of penal policies and wider acceptance of restorative practices.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
