Reconceptualization of Restorative Justice in The Attorney General's Office of The Republic of Indonesia

Abstract

Purpose: This article examines the regulatory framework and practical application of restorative justice by the Indonesian Prosecutor's Office. The adoption of restorative justice in Indonesia has been delayed by the legalistic and formalistic nature of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure.   Theoretical framework: To address this issue, an Attorney General Regulation has been put in place to oversee and regulate restorative justice practices. Nevertheless, there are still uncertainties regarding the alignment between the Prosecutor's Office's restorative justice concept and its fundamental nature.   Methods: This study uses a normative legal methodology to conduct qualitative research. The research indicates that the Prosecutor's Regulations on Restorative Justice are inherently linked to Indonesia's historical framework of law enforcement.   Results and Conclusion: Consequently, prosecutors continue to handle minor instances, such as those involving Grandma Minah and Grandpa Samirin, much to the public's discontent. In Indonesia, this is evident in the high concentration of prisons.   Research implications:  According to this research, there should not be a connection between restorative justice and the resolution of a case. Restorative justice is distinct from the prosecutor's ability to dismiss a case based on the availability of options. Restorative justice aims to reinstate the "initial condition" and safeguard victims.   Originality/value:  This redirects the emphasis of restorative justice from halting the case to reinstating it. Restorative justice is a criminal framework that enables prosecutors to pursue alternative forms of prosecution and employ non-incarceration penalties. Prosecutors can utilize restorative justice both before and after the legal process, as well as during the legal process.