Bridging the Gap

America began the dramatic growth of its criminal justice system in the 1970s that led to the United States becoming the world’s largest jailer by the 21st century—a time period commonly referred to as mass incarceration. On any given day, approximately two million people are locked behind prisons and jail bars across the country, and over eleven million people cycle in and out of jails and prisons each year. As of the 2020s, there is widespread recognition that racial and social inequities fuel the constant churn of people in and out of the criminal justice and legal systems, leading to the burgeoning of advocacy groups and researchers calling to not only reform but transform the American way of conducting legal and correctional processing of crime. Promote Smart Decarceration was adopted by the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare (now powered by the Grand Challenges for Social Work) in 2015 as an organizing framework for data-driven and evaluative reforms. Smart decarceration is a framework with four guiding concepts: 1) Changing the narrative on incarceration and the incarcerated, 2) Generating criminal justice system-wide innovations, 3) implementing transdisciplinary policy and practice interventions, and 4) employing evidence-driven strategies. Smart decarceration adheres to the principle that in order for transformation to be achieved, both new evidence and existing evidence will guide decision-making and the diffusion of innovations. The achievement of smart decarceration will be evidenced when these three outcomes are simultaneously met: (1) the incarcerated population in US jails and prisons is substantially decreased, (2) racial and economic disparities in the criminal justice system are redressed, and (3) community safety and public well-being are maximized. Efforts to transform the criminal justice system are wide-ranging and include strategies such as legislative policy reform, prevention programming, public-messaging campaigns, empirical documentation of problems and solutions, employer hiring initiatives, diversion and deflection efforts, specialty courts, correctional programs, and behavioral interventions. The evidence base is growing for a reimagined criminal justice system, and the state of data-driven approaches to criminal behavior, legal processes, and punishment will likely look very different in 2030 than approaches do in the first two decades of the 2000s. This entry provides a state-of-the-evidence review of scholarship responsive to and informing the tenetsof smart decarceration.

The implementation of law enforcement in Indonesia is currently regulated in Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code, which still causes various problems, especially in the preprosecution stage, which involves the relationship between the investigator and the Public Prosecutor.To resolve cases quickly, precisely, accurately, and fairly, it is necessary to integrate the principle of functional differentiation in resolving cases between investigators and the Public Prosecutor.This research uses a normative juridical approach to examine the application of the Criminal Procedure Code in the criminal justice system in Indonesia.It compares it with the criminal justice systems in South Korea, the United States, the Netherlands, and Germany.Data was collected through secondary data collection techniques (library research).The research results show that implementing the principle of functional differentiation in Indonesia's criminal justice system has been ineffective and often creates legal uncertainty.Comparisons with other countries show that better integration between investigators and Public Prosecutors can speed up the legal process and increase accuracy and fairness.This discussion emphasizes revising the KUHAP to accommodate this integration and involve various stakeholders, especially lawmakers, to create more effective and efficient laws and regulations.In conclusion, reform of the criminal justice system in Indonesia is needed by adopting best practices from other countries to achieve fairer law enforcement for society.

Settings outside the Criminal Code offense of criminal procedural law contained (special) on the other hand there is the Criminal Procedure Code (general). Criminal law plays an important role in an integrated criminal justice system. Aspects of the substance in the criminal justice system should be aligned, harmonious and synchronous (vertical or horizontal), do not overlap (overlapping). This study contradicts the implications of the regulation of offenses outside the Penal Code raises a variety of criminal law and a matter of consistency in its application. The approach used is normative-legal and case studies. Secondary data to primary data. Data were collected by the research literature. Data were analyzed qualitatively descriptive. Research purposes to detect the level of synchronization rules. The results: there are many circulars issued by sub justice system, police, prosecutors, and judicial. In some ways inconsistent implementation such, the case KAI vs. PERADI in Kupang and Kupang District Court pre-trial ruling. Key words : special crimes, the synchronization of criminal procedure and the criminal justice system.

Understanding criminal justice procedure in depth is imperative for developing a peaceful and nonviolent society. The police department is a crucial component of any country’s criminal justice system. The aim of current research was to examine Pakistan's criminal justice system, with a special focus on the Punjab police department as this department is the core part of this CJS (Criminal Justice System) hierarchy. In this study, the researcher employed the quantitative research design, and 104 out of 210 convicted prisoners were interviewed from the Faisalabad District Jail with the help of a well-structured questionnaire. It can be concluded that the policing system of Pakistan has developed through time and is continuing to do so in the modern world, including Pakistan; yet, the intricate workings of the system can be simplified enough for the average person to comprehend them, taking into account the changing interests and challenges of different time and spaces.

This paper aims to examine how the development of an integrated criminal justice system in handling cases of violence against women and the role of legal philosophy in it. This research is normative legal research. This study concludes that the Continental European legal system influences the legal system in Indonesia, so procedural law is an administration of justice that provides guidelines for the working of the institutions involved in the adjudication process. Gender equality during the drafting of the Criminal Procedure Code has not yet become an important issue. This has an impact on the absence of an article formulation in the Criminal Procedure Code that accommodates the special interests of women dealing with the law, both as perpetrators and victims, especially women as victims of gender-based violence, even though many women who are victims of gender-based violence generally experience trauma from the events they experience. The concept of an Integrated Criminal Justice System for Handling Cases of Violence against Women (SPPT-PKKTP) was built as an effort to support the state to be able to carry out its constitutional obligations to fulfill women's human rights in conflict with the law, especially women who are victims of gender-based violence. Considering that the operation of the Criminal Justice System (SPP) is generally regulated based on the Criminal Procedure Code, to present the SPPT-PKKTP so that the criminal justice procedure law becomes a victim perspective, advocating the SPPT-PKKTP concept into the Draft Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code is something that needs to be done. Philosophy of law is the basic foundation of legal science; it can explain that legal philosophy greatly protects the role of human rights, which guarantees the protection of women.

Educational attainment is a key predictor of potential contact with the criminal justice system. A growing body of literature implicates social background and parental incarceration as factors that affect the educational, emotional, and behavioral development of children. Wilson argues that the social isolation of the underclass in urban cities prevents youth from being exposed to mainstream individuals who serve as positive role models, thereby solidifying inequality among the socially disadvantaged. This article draws upon a new, nationally representative data set to assess racial differences in informal mentorship among adolescents. We investigate how mentoring affects academic engagement and self-control among disadvantaged youth who have experienced parental incarceration. Using propensity score-matching methods, findings indicate persistent racial differences in the likelihood of having an informal mentor after controlling for measures of neighborhood disorder, social institutions, and social cohesion. Results show that informal mentoring is associated with increased self-control for non-White children who have never had a parent incarcerated but not for Latino youth who have had a parent behind bars. However, informal mentoring has no measurable effect on the academic engagement of adolescents exposed and unexposed to parental incarceration.

Restorative justice has received attention in settlement of criminal cases in Indonesia. The settlement of cases in restorative justice has not been regulated in the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code. This concept is only regulated through regulations set by law enforcement agencies in the criminal justice system. The question of this research is how to implement restorative justice in solving cases in Indonesia? What is the model of restorative justice in the regulations and applied to customary law communities in Indonesia? This research is a doctrinal or normative legal research method. Restorative justice has been implemented in indigenous peoples in various parts of Indonesia, such as the Balinese indigenous peoples, the Bajawa indigenous peoples, Flores East Nusa Tenggara, the Lampung indigenous peoples and the Karo Batak indigenous peoples. The model of restorative justice that the Indonesian people have practiced is known as the Safeguard System. A model designed to handle case resolution through a restorative approach. Communities have various restoration programs as the primary means of dealing with various problems. The concept of restorative justice, applied in investigation, prosecution and court, adheres to a dual-track system model. This model is an alternative companion to the criminal justice system. The conflicting parties will be given the freedom to choose how to settle criminal cases. If the efforts through the restorative approach are successful, the settlement through the criminal justice system will be abolished.

The use of forensic DNA evidence in the criminal justice system in Indonesia faces various challenges, especially related to regulations that are not fully aligned with international standards. Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), especially Articles 184 and 186, does not provide specific guidelines regarding the procedures for collecting, testing, and using forensic DNA evidence in the criminal evidence process. This study aims to analyze the regulations and procedures governing forensic DNA evidence in Indonesia and propose legal solutions to strengthen the regulations to comply with international standards. This study uses a normative legal research method, focusing on the analysis of relevant laws, legal doctrines, and court decisions. Discussions center on the harmonization of national regulations with international standards, strengthening the capacity of forensic institutions, and reforming legal procedures related to DNA evidence. The research findings indicate that Indonesia needs more comprehensive regulatory reforms related to the use of forensic DNA evidence, especially regarding the accreditation of forensic laboratories according to international standards such as ISO 17025 and the development of transparent and legally accountable evidence collection procedures. In conclusion, although DNA evidence has great potential to strengthen convictions in the criminal justice system, regulatory reform and strengthening of forensic institutions are needed for the Indonesian justice system to adopt higher international standards. Thus, the use of forensic DNA evidence can contribute significantly to justice in criminal law enforcement in Indonesia.

This study analyzes the position of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP 2025) as an instrument for assessing judges’ compliance with the 10 Points of the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Judges’ Conduct (KEPPH) in criminal trials. The KUHAP update is not only intended as a technical adjustment to the enactment of the new KUHP, but also as a means of integrating judicial ethical values into binding criminal procedure law norms. This study uses normative legal methods, drawing on statutory, conceptual, and Critical Legal Studies (CLS) approaches. The results show that the 2025 KUHAP has systematically internalized the KEPPH principles into various procedural provisions, ranging from justice, honesty, and wisdom to independence, integrity, responsibility, judicial dignity, discipline, humility, and the professionalism of judges. However, from a CLS perspective, this integration has not fully dismantled the structural power relations in the criminal justice system. Juridified ethical norms still have the potential to be reduced to formal compliance if they are not accompanied by judges’ critical awareness of the structural inequalities inherent in judicial practice. Therefore, the effectiveness of the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code as an instrument for evaluating judicial ethics depends heavily on the transformation of judicial awareness toward substantive justice.

Children's involvement in school disciplinary problems is often a predictor of their involvement in crime in the future, resulting in them coming into contact with the criminal justice system. Therefore, teaching final-year law students the subject of criminal procedure, particularly governing the juvenile justice system, is essential for legal practice, especially when the legal rights of the children need to be protected since they are vulnerable to the adverse effects of the juvenile justice system. In this connection, the objectives of this paper are (a) to examine the underpinning causes behind children’s involvement in disciplinary problems in schools as predictors of their future involvement in crime; (b) to analyse the existing legal framework governing the juvenile justice system in Malaysia that forms part of the subject of criminal law procedure, and (c) to examine the importance of teaching criminal law procedure subject to final-year law students in preparing them for legal practice, especially when dealing with juveniles in the juvenile justice system. A qualitative research design is undertaken to explore the significance of teaching criminal law procedure to final-year law students by undertaking library-based research and an examination of content analysis, drawing from both primary and secondary sources. The findings in this research demonstrate that children who commit disciplinary problems in schools, such as truancy and bullying, will eventually come into contact with the criminal justice system, and their legal rights need to be protected. This research is significant in meeting the university’s mission, vision and values and supporting the national framework for reducing crime rates and strengthening crime prevention initiatives.

From the standpoint of everyday experience, this paper reveals how the rules and procedures used within the Criminal Justice System in Korea to assess juvenile crime disproportionately favors higher income individuals. Specifically, it identifies the importance of how people are represented and classified within the criminal justice system in the application of restorative justice programming. Drawing on a methodology of Institutional Ethnography, texts related to the implementation of restorative justice within the Korean Criminal Justice System were reviewed, and interviews were conducted with key individual(s) charged with implementing restorative justice practices. Findings from this research show a clash between the Korean cultural ethics of “jeong,” which stresses the need for restoration and peace in the face of all criminal actions, and the selective application of restorative justice in the modern Korean context. In particular, the rules and procedures used in the classification of juvenile offenders limits what types of individuals and communities are allowed to benefit from these programs. This is problematic, as delinquents receiving the benefit of restorative justice programing will only be limited to those classified as being 'compatible' with existing programming under the Criminal Justice System's rules and procedures, significantly disadvantaging lower income juveniles.

The position of witnesses in the criminal justice process occupies a key position, as seen in Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter abbreviated to KUHAP). The method used is library research, collecting data by searching for sources and constructing them from various sources such as books, journals and existing research. In the criminal justice system, witnesses have not been maximally protected in a number of laws and regulations such as in the Criminal Procedure Code and in the Criminal Code, where witnesses have not received maximum attention because in the law above, almost in the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code there is not a single article that specifically regulates witness protection and almost every article in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Code, witness rights are always included with the rights of victims. The Criminal Procedure Code, which has so far been the basis for proceedings in Indonesian criminal justice, does not regulate the rights and protection of witnesses fundamentally or specifically even though there are several provisions. in the Criminal Procedure Code which regulates, regarding the rights of a witness as Article 108 paragraph (1) reads: every person who experiences, sees and witnesses and/or becomes a victim of an incident which constitutes a criminal act has the right to submit a report or complaint to the investigator or investigator either verbally or verbally. writing.

Restorative justice, which seeks to remedy the limitations of retributive justice by emphasizing the substantive recovery of victims and the restoration of community relationships, has been increasingly implemented and codified across all stages of criminal procedure in numerous jurisdictions worldwide. In Korea, certain restorative justice mechanisms—such as criminal mediation and recommendations for reconciliation— are currently in operation; however, these practices face significant challenges, including legislative insufficiency, operational limitations, potential infringements of procedural rights, and a lack of professional expertise. In order to explore a viable legislative model to address these shortcomings, this study undertakes a comparative legal analysis focusing on Taiwan, which— reflecting international legislative trends—has comprehensively codified restorative justice throughout the criminal process. In Taiwan, restorative justice (修復式司法) is explicitly regulated in multiple statutes, including the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Crime Victim Protection Act, the Detention Act, the Prison Act, and the Juvenile Justice Act. In addition, detailed procedural requirements and compliance standards are set forth in subordinate regulations such as the Guidelines for Prosecutorial Referral to Restorative Justice during Investigation (2023), the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of Restorative Justice (2021), and the Guidelines for Judicial Referral to Restorative Justice during Trial (2021), thereby establishing an integrated framework applicable across the entire criminal justice system. By examining Taiwan’s legislative framework, implementation practices, and relevant case law, this study derives key implications for the institutionalization of restorative justice within the criminal justice system. Specifically, the Taiwanese model demonstrates: (1) a systematic legislative structure that explicitly incorporates restorative justice at all stages of criminal proceedings and across all categories of crime through comprehensive statutory provisions; (2) detailed legal safeguards ensuring victim protection, participation rights, respect for dignity, and safety; (3) judicial development of restorative justice principles through case law, enabling qualitative evaluation of agreements at sentencing based on the offender’s genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility, as well as the victim’s forgiveness and recovery; (4) the establishment of professional competency through mandatory training and qualification requirements for restorative justice facilitators administered by the Ministry of Justice; (5) mechanisms for quality control through post-process evaluation and performance indicators; and (6) clearly defined scopes and limitations of application to ensure coherence with the existing criminal justice system. By contrast, although Korea has institutionalized certain restorative elements through criminal mediation and reconciliation recommendations, their applicability remains limited, and significant legislative gaps persist with respect to judicial proceedings, correctional institutions, and juvenile criminal dispositions. Drawing on Taiwan’s experience, this study proposes legislative reforms for Korea, including the introduction of explicit restorative justice referral provisions within the Criminal Procedure Act, as well as amendments to the Juvenile Act and the Crime Victim Protection Act to clarify the rights and obligations of victims and offenders, and the qualifications and roles of responsible officials. Through this analysis, the study seeks to offer a legislative framework for a Korean model of restorative justice that realizes restorative ideals while ensuring procedural stability and the protection of fundamental rights.

This paper aims to explore the urgency of reconstructing the institutional role of the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) within Indonesia’s criminal justice system. Using a normative and empirical legal research methods, which is done by literature review, field exploration, and analysis, it builds an accurate and concrete model for implementing the construction of the position of the LPSK in the current criminal justice system. This study found that bureaucratic challenges—such as financial limitations, inadequate human resources, and institutional stagnation—have constrained the justice system’s ability to function equitably. These conditions often lead to the centralization of investigative power and a compartmentalized system in which oversight is limited and reactive. Within this context, LPSK holds potential as a horizontal oversight mechanism, offering checks on investigators’ authority and ensuring victim and witness rights are safeguarded during proceedings. This paper further analyzes how the Criminal Procedure Code anticipates horizontal supervision between law enforcement agencies, particularly between investigators and public prosecutors, and how LPSK can contribute to this oversight structure. However, limitations in institutional capacity and the centralized nature of LPSK pose challenges to its accessibility and effectiveness. Strengthening LPSK’s institutional capacity and expanding its regional presence are critical for responding to the growing demand for witness and victim protection, including in cases involving gross human rights violations. This study underscores the need for systemic reform and political will to ensure that protection of witnesses and victims becomes an integral part of a due process-oriented criminal justice system in Indonesia.

Legal Reform on Behalf of Victims of Crime: The Primacy of the Dutch Legislature in a Changing International Environment