<![CDATA[Criminal law enforcement in Indonesia often shows a gap between the promise of equality before the law and the outcomes experienced by marginalized communities. Minor cases involving the poor are processed through to a verdict, while major cases involving power and capital tend to move slowly and end lightly. This study aims to explain why power relations affect the objectivity of law and to formulate a philosophical remedy for these disparities. It employs a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches through library research. The findings indicate that legal neutrality is a myth sustained by legalistic-positivist thinking. Criminal norms that are open to interpretation benefit those who can afford strong defense, while marginalized people receive the most rigid reading. Progressive Law, judicial law-finding (rechtsvinding), and Article 53 paragraph (2) of the new Criminal Code can ground a judge’s duty to prioritize substantive justice, provided that judicial reasoning remains open to testing and respects the principle of legality. A change in how law enforcers think therefore matters more than a change in statutory text]]>
Copyrights © 2026
