Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis
Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis (SCrim) is a rigorous, peer-reviewed academic forum dedicated to the comprehensive examination of substantive and procedural criminal law, penal policy, and the broader intersections of criminal justice and contemporary society. Published triannually in February, June, and October, SCrim seeks to advance scholarly discourse by featuring high-impact doctrinal analyses, empirical studies, and critical theoretical perspectives from legal scholars, practitioners, and policymakers. Committed to fostering intellectual excellence and shaping critical legal debates, the journal serves as a premier platform for incisive critiques, comprehensive reviews of emerging statutory reforms, and the thorough evaluation of seminal jurisprudence within the dynamic field of criminal law.
Articles
13 Documents
<![CDATA[Legal Analysis of Suspect Designation of the Minister of Education in the Chromebook Laptop Procurement Corruption Case ]]>
<![CDATA[Fahriza Hafiz]]>;
<![CDATA[Rosta Hamidah]]>
<![CDATA[ Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis (SCrim) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Divisi Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/scrim.v1i1.26
<![CDATA[This article examines the complex legal dimensions of the suspect designation of the former Minister of Education in the Chromebook procurement corruption case. It aims to clearly demarcate the critical boundary between legitimate public policy discretion and abuse of power implicating criminal liability. Utilizing a normative legal research method with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, the study analyzes both procedural and material aspects of the case. Procedurally, the suspect designation fulfills the minimum requirement of sufficient initial evidence through authentic documents and witness testimonies. Materially, the ministerial policy systematically locking technical specifications to a single operating system, deliberately ignoring internal technical studies, demonstrates a potential shift from valid discretion to an act of authority abuse. The required malicious intent is constructed from deliberate actions favoring specific corporations, while state loss is proven through absolute failure to achieve optimal value from money usage. This firmly establishes highly crucial modern Indonesian precedents.]]>
<![CDATA[Legal Analysis of Extortion Crimes in Public Services: A Case Study of the Issuance of K3 Certification at the Ministry of Manpower ]]>
<![CDATA[M. Reza Saputra]]>
<![CDATA[ Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis (SCrim) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Divisi Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/scrim.v1i1.28
<![CDATA[This study conducts a juridical analysis of extortion crimes within public service, focusing on the issuance of Occupational Safety and Health (K3) certification at Indonesia’s Ministry of Manpower. Employing a normative legal approach and a case study methodology, the research examines the legal frameworks in the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP) and the Corruption Eradication Law (UU Tipikor), highlighting the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali. Through document review and comparative analysis, the study reconstructs the modus operandi and actor network involved in a Transnational Organized Transaction (OTT) by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), revealing systemic bureaucratic coercion and illicit fees up to IDR 6 million per applicant. Findings demonstrate that these actions fulfill the elements of Article 12(e) UU Tipikor rather than general extortion provisions, warranting harsher penalties. Recommendations include digitalizing K3 certification processes, strengthening internal and external oversight, and enforcing zero tolerance through maximal sanctions and bureaucratic reform.]]>
<![CDATA[Analysis of the Implementation of Law Number 8 of 2019 in the 2024 Hajj Quota Corruption Case ]]>
<![CDATA[Ashyfa Prasasti]]>
<![CDATA[ Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis (SCrim) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Divisi Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/scrim.v1i1.29
<![CDATA[This article examines the implementation of Law No. 8 of 2019 on Hajj and Umrah in the context of the 2024 Hajj quota corruption scandal. Employing a normative-empirical juridical approach, it analyzes statutory provisions, legislative intent, and empirical data from official reports and KPK investigations. The study identifies three critical vulnerabilities: discretionary ambiguity in ministerial quota allocation, institutional conflicts of interest undermining internal oversight, and procedural manipulations in payment deadlines that enabled market-based resale of Hajj slots. Findings reveal that these systemic failures facilitated a structured corruption network, resulting in state losses exceeding IDR 1 trillion and eroding public trust in Hajj governance. The article argues that Law No. 8/2019, despite its ideals of transparency, accountability, and justice, contains regulatory loopholes that were exploited. It concludes with targeted recommendations for legal amendment, institutional restructuring to separate regulatory and operational functions, and establishment of an independent supervisory commission to safeguard Hajj administration integrity.]]>
<![CDATA[Urgency of the Criminal Asset Forfeiture Bill: A Comparative Analysis with the Asset Recovery Approach ]]>
<![CDATA[Anisa Rizki Al Fahmi]]>
<![CDATA[ Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis (SCrim) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Divisi Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/scrim.v1i1.30
<![CDATA[The Criminal Asset Forfeiture Bill (RUU PA) represents a paradigm shift in Indonesia’s approach to combatting economic crime by enabling non-conviction-based asset seizure through in rem proceedings. Traditional conviction-based mechanisms under the Indonesian Penal Code and Anti-Money Laundering Law have failed to recover more than 7.8% of state losses from corruption, undermining public trust and fiscal capacity. By comparing the U.S. civil forfeiture framework, the U.K. Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and Singapore’s CDSA regime, this study identifies the legal standards, procedural safeguards, and institutional designs that maximize asset recovery while protecting fundamental rights. Key findings highlight the necessity of clear evidentiary thresholds, third-party protections, and judicial oversight to prevent abuse of power. Recommendations include harmonizing RUU PA with existing criminal procedure codes, establishing an independent asset management agency, and incorporating meaningful public participation. These reforms aim to strengthen Indonesia’s legal infrastructure, enhance state revenue recovery, and deter high-level corruption.]]>
<![CDATA[The 'No Viral, No Justice' Phenomenon in the Digital Age: Implications of Public Pressure on the Independence and Objectivity of Criminal Investigations ]]>
<![CDATA[Diana Alpiani Safitri]]>
<![CDATA[ Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis (SCrim) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Divisi Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/scrim.v1i1.31
<![CDATA[This legal study examines the viral justice phenomenon alongside its profound implications for the independence and objectivity of Indonesian criminal investigations. As digital vigilantism replaces formal reporting, algorithms increasingly dictate law enforcement priorities, creating a populist justice ecosystem. The research evaluates recent cases to demonstrate how immense public pressure induces confirmation bias and tunnel vision among investigators. Consequently, this digital coercion directly accelerates procedural errors and wrongful arrests. Furthermore, the analysis highlights a critical tension between impulsive demands for instant retribution on social media and the rigorous judicial scrutiny mandated by the new Criminal Procedure Code. To safeguard procedural integrity and constitutional equality, this article recommends establishing mandatory delay periods and tiered supervisory protocols within police departments. These vital institutional reforms will ensure that democratic policing adheres strictly to the objective rule of law, rather than succumbing to capricious algorithmic dictates or transient online mob outrage continuously emerging nationwide today.]]>
<![CDATA[Legal Analysis of Restorative Justice Implementation to Protect Press Freedom in Indonesia ]]>
<![CDATA[Risman Setiawan]]>
<![CDATA[ Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis (SCrim) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Divisi Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/scrim.v1i2.46
<![CDATA[This study provides a legal analysis of restorative justice as a mechanism to better safeguard press freedom from potential criminalization in Indonesia. The main issue examined is the growing use of retributive criminal law against journalistic activities, which threatens the democratic role of the press. This research uses a normative legal method with statutory and conceptual approaches. The findings show that penal mediation, as a form of restorative justice, offers an integrative model for resolving news-related disputes while maintaining the public’s right to information. The application of the ultimum remedium principle through technical law-enforcement regulations can reduce the harmful impact of defamation provisions in the ITE Law on journalists. Restorative justice therefore becomes an urgent legal necessity to balance protection of journalists’ dignity with the press’s social control function. This study recommends regulatory harmonization by recognizing Press Council mediation outcomes as grounds for case dismissal in Indonesia’s criminal justice system.]]>
<![CDATA[Rehabilitative Sentencing for Narcotics Offenders in Surakarta District Court: A Humanistic Approach ]]>
<![CDATA[Aurel Nur Latifa]]>;
<![CDATA[Hartiwiningsih]]>;
<![CDATA[Sulistyanta]]>
<![CDATA[ Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis (SCrim) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Divisi Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/scrim.v1i2.47
<![CDATA[The handling of narcotics offenses in Indonesia faces a severe crisis due to the dominance of retributive reasoning, particularly in the Surakarta District Court. This doctrinal legal research aims to dissect the anomaly of subjective judicial considerations that disregard rehabilitation mandates for persons with pure drug dependency, while simultaneously formulating prescriptive legal parameters to limit such discretion. Utilizing statutory and case approaches, the analysis reveals that judges commit teleological judicial overreach. The medical authority of assessment institutions is marginalized by judicial ego and penal populism, which manipulate pretexts of public disturbance to imprison vulnerable end users. This malpractice dismantles restorative justice and exacerbates prison overcrowding. The study concludes that transforming into a humanistic judiciary necessitates three absolute restrictions: the obligation to hear independent medical opinions, establishing evidence thresholds as absolute presumptions for rehabilitation, and a total ban on subjective clauses to aggravate criminal sentences. These legal policies are crucial to restore human rights.]]>
<![CDATA[One Third Criminal Sentence Enhancement for Recidivists of Narcotics Crimes in Indonesia ]]>
<![CDATA[Erma Dwi Margareta]]>;
<![CDATA[Hartiwiningsih]]>;
<![CDATA[Sulistyanta]]>
<![CDATA[ Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis (SCrim) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Divisi Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/scrim.v1i2.48
<![CDATA[The transition in Indonesian criminal law triggers a sharp clash of norms between Article 144 of the Narcotics Act and the new National Penal Code. Special statutory provisions mandate a mechanical one third sentence enhancement for recidivists within a three year interval, whereas the newly enacted code extends this period to five years while prioritizing individualization of punishment. This doctrinal legal research examines the juridical implications of this normative dualism on judicial discretion and sentencing disparities. Empirically, rigid mathematical sentencing exacerbates extreme prison overcrowding and defies humanistic global trends in narcotics justice. This article argues that sentence enhancement must no longer operate through a purely mechanical approach for the sake of illusory certainty. Instead, judges should adopt a systematic teleological interpretation grounded in corrective justice. This study reconstructs ideal sentencing guidelines to harmonize statutory imperatives with judicial discretion, ensuring that narcotics recidivist sentences are strictly evaluated through medical rehabilitation eligibility.]]>
<![CDATA[Fulfilling The Rights of Defendant Thomas Trikasih Lembong in Criminal Corruption Proceedings ]]>
<![CDATA[Azhar Fadhillo Cahyana]]>;
<![CDATA[Itok Dwi Kurniawan]]>
<![CDATA[ Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis (SCrim) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Divisi Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/scrim.v1i2.49
<![CDATA[This research critically analyzes procedural and substantive anomalies in the trial court decision regarding the alleged corruption of former Trade Minister Thomas Trikasih Lembong. Utilizing a jurisprudential method via statutory and case-law approaches, this study uncovers international fair trial violations involving nine excessive detention extensions and an extreme equality of arms imbalance during court proceedings. Substantively, judicial considerations expose the absence of malicious intent (mens rea) in executing strategic commodity stability discretion, simultaneously revealing epistemological flaws within the state financial loss audit by the prosecutorial authority. By applying Gustav Radbruch’s theory, formalistic criminalization demonstrably destroys substantive justice for public officials while ignoring legal utility. Alternatively, this manuscript proposes a novel conceptual framework termed the Discretion-Penal Proportionality Test model as an upstream preventive safeguard. This systematic reconstruction is engineered to combat the lawfare pathology or macroeconomic policy criminalization, thereby safeguarding constitutional governance across democratic developing nations within the Global South.]]>
<![CDATA[PSA Stabilization Clauses Limiting State Ius Imperium: An International Investment Law Perspective ]]>
<![CDATA[Rizky Akbar]]>
<![CDATA[ Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis Vol. 1 No. 3 (2026): Smart: Journal of Criminal Law Review and Analysis (SCrim) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Divisi Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/scrim.v1i3.55
<![CDATA[International investment agreements utilizing stabilization clauses consistently paralyze sovereign regulatory authority, creating a systemic regulatory chill that fatally obstructs the prosecution of transnational corporate crimes and massive ecological damages. This doctrinal legal research evaluated the constitutional boundaries of state police powers against the contractual immunity inherently provided by modern extractive contracts. The detailed analysis demonstrated that rigid freezing mechanisms illegitimately transform commercial risk mitigation into an absolute sovereign shield, effectively neutralizing contemporary penal jurisdiction over multinational corporations. The central thesis firmly maintains that commercial expectations can never legally justify ecological impunity or systemic corruption. To completely dismantle this structural deadlock, host states must fundamentally redesign production sharing agreements by systematically integrating an explicit penal-environmental carve-out provision. This original conceptualization establishes a progressive normative boundary that rigorously insulates domestic penal enforcement from international arbitration interference, prescriptively empowering global legal systems to secure profound ecological justice without violating any legitimate foreign investments.]]>
