Diskresi Jaksa dalam Penghentian Penuntutan Berbasis Keadilan Restoratif Analisis Mixed Methods pada Kasus Aktual

Authors

  • Faridatus Sakdiyah Universitas Islam Nahdlatul Ulama, Jepara, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia
  • Rahmat Juni Andi Universitas Islam Nahdlatul Ulama, Jepara, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51903/84hqqj48

Keywords:

Prosecutorial discretion, Restorative justice, Termination of prosecution, Mixed methods, Criminal justice system

Abstract

This study aims to analyze prosecutorial discretion in the termination of prosecution based on restorative justice through an empirical approach integrating quantitative and qualitative methods. The study is motivated by the limitations of prior research, which has predominantly focused on normative perspectives and has not comprehensively explored how prosecutorial discretion operates in practice. A mixed methods design was employed, involving the analysis of 120 case records of prosecution termination and in-depth interviews with prosecutors as key informants. The findings reveal that discretionary decisions are predominantly applied to minor criminal offenses, with victim–offender reconciliation emerging as the most significant determinant, followed by victim consent and the level of material loss. Furthermore, prosecutorial discretion is shaped by the interaction of legal, social, and institutional factors, which collectively influence context-based decision-making. These results demonstrate that prosecutorial discretion functions as an adaptive mechanism that integrates legal certainty with substantive justice, reflecting a paradigm shift from retributive to restorative approaches within the criminal justice system. The primary contribution of this study lies in the development of an empirical model of prosecutorial discretion based on three key dimensions, as well as in providing empirical evidence that advances legal scholarship beyond its traditional normative orientation. The findings also offer policy implications, highlighting the need for stronger regulatory frameworks, enhanced prosecutorial capacity in penal mediation, and robust accountability mechanisms to ensure consistent application of discretion.

 

References

Agbonaye, O. U., Agbede, I. O., & Taiwo, A. (2024). Analysising Restorative Justice System as a Tool for Dispute Resolution in the Administration of Justice in Lagos State, Nigeria. Lasjure, 5(1), 166. https://nigerianjournalsonline.com/index.php/lasjure/article/view/5804

Amaral, F. A., Loeffler, C. E., & Ridgeway, G. (2024). Prosecutorial Discretion Not to Invoke the Criminal Process and its Impact on Firearm Cases. Journal of Criminal Justice, 95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102313

Arimuladi, S. U. (2024). Enhancing Legal Certainty Through Restorative Justice: A Focus on the Role of Indonesia’s Attorney General’s Office. Pakistan Journal of Criminology, 16(2), 903–912. https://doi.org/10.62271/pjc.16.2.903.912

Barocas, B., Avieli, H., Shimizu, R., Yang, S., Uday Patankar, K., & Al Neyadi, L. (2024). Restorative Justice for Domestic Violence: The Meaning of Community in Circles. Victims and Offenders, 19(6), 984–1002. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2024.2312472

Baron, O. T. S., Guetzkow, J., & Argo, D. (2026). “Criminal” or “Insane”? Ethnicity and Psychiatric Evaluations of Defendants’ Competency and Responsibility. Race and Justice. https://doi.org/10.1177/21533687261419425

Cotterrell, R. (2023). A Socio-Legal Quest: From Jurisprudence to Sociology of Law and Back Again. Journal of Law and Society, 50(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12403

Dempsey, R. P., Eskander, E. E., & Dubljević, V. (2023). Ethical Decision-Making in Law Enforcement: A Scoping Review. Psych, 5(2), 576–601. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych5020037

Drummond, C. B., & Shammi, S. H. (2024). Power, Discretion, and the Landscape of Contemporary Prosecution. Using Organizational Theory to Study, Explain, and Understand Criminal Legal Organizations, 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66285-0_10

Fadhil, M. (2023). Paradigm Shift of Criminal Punishment towards Restorative Justice in Law Enforcement Officers in Pontianak City. Proceeding of the 3rd Malikussaleh International Conference on Law, Legal Studies and Social Sciences (MICoLLS) 2023, 1(1), 73–90.

Gao, H., & Lin, T. (2025). How to Compensate Forest Ecosystem Services through Restorative Justice: An Analysis Based on Typical Cases in China. Forests, 16(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/f16081254

Gunderson, A. (2022). Descriptive Representation and Prosecutorial Discretion: Race, Sex, and Carceral Disparities. American Politics Research, 50(6), 823–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221082638

Jiao, H., Li, W., Lu, J., & Griep, Y. (2025). Drunk driving policy and urban entrepreneurship: a difference-in-differences approach. Management Decision, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2025-0870

Khan, M. S. (2024). Locating Socio-Legal Research in Pakistan: A Reflexive Approach. Socio-Legal Review, 20(2), 92–119. https://doi.org/10.55496/rdmb4295

Kirkwood, S. (2022). A Practice Framework for Restorative Justice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101688

Kitson-Boyce, R., & Athwal-Kooner, P. (2024). It is Successful, and if it is Successful, it Reduces Crime, and it Can Make the Victims Happier’: Volunteers’ Perceptions of Working in Restorative Justice. Journal of Forensic Practice, 26(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-05-2023-0027

Kurtaliqi, F., Lancelot Miltgen, C., Viglia, G., & Pantin-Sohier, G. (2024). Using Advanced Mixed Methods Approaches: Combining PLS-SEM and Qualitative Studies. Journal of Business Research, 172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114464

Le, L. C., Mai, S. T., Hoang, Y. H., Nguyen, D. Q., Pham, T. N., & Luong, H. T. (2025). Mandatory Prosecution in the Changing Time: A Systematic Literature Review. Criminal Justice Ethics, 44(1), 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2025.2476303

Marder, I. D., & Forde, L. (2023). Challenges in the Future of Restorative Youth Justice in Ireland: Minimising Intervention, Maximising Participation. Youth Justice, 23(2), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/14732254221122568

Mazzola, R. (2024). Sulha: Exploring Contrasts between Restorative Justice and Indigenous Conflict Resolution. Mediares, 1, 45–62.

Nascimento, A. M., Andrade, J., & de Castro Rodrigues, A. (2023). The Psychological Impact of Restorative Justice Practices on Victims of Crimes - a Systematic Review. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 24(3), 1929–1947. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221082085

O’Regan, B., King, R., & Smith, D. (2022). Combining Accountability Forms: Transparency and “Intelligent” Accountability in a Public Service Organization. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 35(5), 1287–1315. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2020-4473

Peleg-Koriat, I. (2025). Ethnic Differences in Support for Restorative Justice in Sexual Abuse Cases: The Role of Offense Severity and Malleability Beliefs. Violence Against Women. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012251347588

Peraturan Jaksa Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 15 Tahun 2020. (2020). Tentang Penghentian Penuntutan Berdasarkan Keadilan Restoratif. Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia.

Postu, I., & Rusnac, V. (2024). The Evolution and Complexity of the Concept of “Legal System”: Normative and Sociological Approaches. Studii Juridice Universitare, 2, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.54481/sju.2024.2.08

Ridwan Arifin, Idris, S. H., Munandar, T. I., & Nte, N. D. (2023). Striking a Balance: Navigating Peace, Justice, and Restorative Justice in Indonesian Prosecutorial Process. The Prosecutor Law Review, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.64843/prolev.v1i3.25

Scholl, M. B., & Townsend, C. B. (2024). Restorative Justice: A Humanistic Paradigm for Addressing The Needs of Victims, Offenders, and Communities. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 63(3), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/johc.12204

Simbolon, B. F. M. T., Syahrin, A., Ablisar, M., & Marlina. (2022). Juridical Review of Comparative Prosecution Systems in Indonesia and the United States of Prosecutors Based on Restorative Justice. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Public Policy, Social Computing and Development (ICOPOSDEV 2021), 642. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220204.014

Soubise, L. (2025). Managerialism and the Erosion of Professional Discretion: The Case of the Crown Prosecution Service. International Journal of the Legal Profession, 32(3), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2025.2519621

Wahyudi, I., Rosidah, N., & Danil, E. (2025). Implementation of Termination of Prosecution Based on Restorative Justice as an Effort to Strengthen the Role of the Prosecutor’s Office in Indonesia. Scholars International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 8(07), 188–197. https://doi.org/10.36348/sijlcj.2025.v08i07.004

Zare, H., Gilmore, D. R., Balsara, K., Pargas, C. R., Valek, R., Ponce, A. N., Masoudi, N., Spencer, M., Warren, T. Y., & Crifasi, C. (2025). State-by-State Review: The Spread of Law Enforcement Accountability Policies. Social Sciences, 14(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14080483

Downloads

Published

2026-10-03

How to Cite

Diskresi Jaksa dalam Penghentian Penuntutan Berbasis Keadilan Restoratif Analisis Mixed Methods pada Kasus Aktual. (2026). Jaksa : Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum Dan Politik, 4(4), 15-27. https://doi.org/10.51903/84hqqj48