<![CDATA[This study analyzes the regulation of plea bargaining (PB) under Indonesia’s Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), examines the inconsistency in the first-offender requirement under Article 234, and proposes a regulatory model informed by comparison with Italy’s patteggiamento. The study addresses the discrepancy between Articles 78 and 205, which require defendants to be first-time offenders, and Article 234, which does not explicitly impose this requirement. This inconsistency creates legal uncertainty regarding repeat offenders’ eligibility for PB and may result in inconsistent application. The study employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The findings reveal that Indonesia’s PB framework lacks consistency, whereas Italy’s patteggiamento restricts eligibility according to specific offender categories and legal conditions without universally requiring first-offender status. The Italian model serves as a comparative reference rather than a framework for direct adoption, highlighting the importance of clear and coherent eligibility criteria. In Indonesia, adding a first-offender requirement to Article 234 would align it with Articles 78 and 205 and strengthen the internal consistency of PB regulation. The ambiguity surrounding Article 234 also raises concerns about corruption cases, which Article 205 excludes from PB but Article 234 does not expressly address. Accordingly, Article 234 should be revised to specify the first-offender requirement and clarify which offenses are excluded from PB. These amendments should reflect Indonesia’s legal context rather than replicate the Italian model, promoting legal certainty, reducing interpretive differences, and ensuring consistent application of PB within the Indonesian criminal justice system.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
