A Sentencing Effectiveness Assessment Form as a Normative Instrument for Supervisory-and-Observatory Judges under Indonesia’s 2025 Criminal Procedural Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61978/legalis.v4i1.1254Keywords:
Supervisory-and-Observatory Judge, Criminal Procedural Law 2025, Effective SentencingAbstract
Criminal Procedural Law 2025 limits the role of supervisory-and-observatory judge to ‘researcher’, when it’s supposed to analyze trial proceeding’s effectiveness in sentencing. Research question based on existing problem includes how could there be absence of evaluative mechanism for sentencing effectiveness in the 2025 Criminal Procedural Law and how does supervisory-and-observatory judge may suggest effective sentencing with sentencing effectiveness assessment form. The novelty of this research is its finding of recognizing the method of supervisory-and-observatory judge in improving effective sentencing based on criminal procedural law 2025 through sentencing effectiveness assessment form that contains realistic practical report that may be considered and used as decision consideration of trial judges. Previous research such as Putra’s research (2024) that concludes sentencing must focuses on justice and obedience to God, but it has not discussed about the existence of Criminal Procedural Law 2025. As normative research, this research studies normative problem of supervisory-and-observatory judges to remedy improper sentencing for the future by applying statute approach towards Criminal Procedural Law 2025 and conceptual approach of legal expediency and theory of prisonization. Result showed that supervisory-and-observatory judges may express result of redundant sentencing and the use assessment form to remedy improper sentencing. The conclusion of this research is that the role of supervisory-and-observatory judge must be applied optimally with direct consequence to penitentiary to optimize crime decrease. Implication of the research would be to stress active role of supervisory-and-observatory judge to suggest effective sentencing. The research novelty is sentencing effectiveness assessment form as a normative model.
References
Adair-Toteff, C. (2025). Law’s Limit: The Kelsen/Hart Debate. History of European Ideas, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/01916599.2025.2581662 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01916599.2025.2581662
Bramantyo, R. Y., Pujiono, B., Windradi, F., Wicaksono, D. G., Santoso, H., & Soewono, D. H. (2024). Perbandingan Hukum Pidana KUHP Lama Indonesia dengan KUHP Baru Indonesia Ditinjau dari Perspektif Pembaruan Hukum Pidana. Jurnal Transparansi Hukum, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.30737/transparansi.v7i2.5795 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30737/transparansi.v7i2.5795
Chaniago, A. U., Ismansyah, & Mulyati, N. (2025). Kepastian Hukum Penggunaan Saksi Mahkota dalam Pembuktian Pidana Ditinjau dari Asas Non Self Incrimination. Unes Journal of Swara Justisia, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.31933/sy41r659 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31933/sy41r659
Chauhan, S., & Arora, B. (2025). How Laws Impact Our Lives and Cultural Practices as Society Changes. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i02.38237 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i02.38237
Doodoh, M., & Tuwaidan, H. F. D. (2025). Perspektif HAM terhadap Asas Praduga Tak Bersalah pada Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Jurnal Nuansa Akademik, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.47200/jnajpm.v10i1.2723 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47200/jnajpm.v10i1.2723
Ferrando, P. J., Morales-Vives, F., Casas, J. M., & Muniz, J. (2025). Likert Scales: A Practical Guide to Design, Construction and Use. Psicothema, 37(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.70478/psicothema.2025.37.24 DOI: https://doi.org/10.70478/psicothema.2025.37.24
Gallagher, A. L., Cusack, A., Kearns, A., O’Mahony, B. M., & Taggart, J. (2024). Establishing Stakeholder Priorities for Advancing the Role of the Intermediary in the Justice System. International Journal of Evidence and Proof. https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127241306173 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127241306173
Gormley, J., Hamilton, M., & Belton, I. (2022). The Effectiveness of Sentencing Options on Reoffending.
Harahap, M. A., Batubara, W., Harahap, R. R., Adelia, N., & Lubis, M. P. K. (2024). Moralitas Hukum dan Tindak Pidana Tanpa Korban: Kasus Prostitusi. Media Hukum Indonesia, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.54957/jolas.v4i6.967 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54957/jolas.v4i6.967
Husamuddin, Efendi, S., Hamdi, S., Rahma, I., Erick, B., Heryanti, N., & Friwati, S. D. (2024). Hukum Acara Pidana dan Pidana Siber. Media Penerbit Indonesia.
Katz, E. J. (2024). Due Process and the Standing Doctrine. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 47.
Kementerian PPN/Bappenas. (2021). Indeks Pembangunan Hukum 2020.
Konyakhin, V. P., Prokhorov, L. A., Petrovskiy, A. V, & Aslanyan, R. G. (2020). Individualization of Punishment in the Context of the Public’s Fear of Crime. IX Baltic Legal Forum. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202110802013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202110802013
MacFarlane, A., Russell-Rose, T., & Shokraneh, F. (2022). Search Strategy Formulation for Systematic Reviews. Intelligent Systems with Applications, 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswa.2022.200091 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswa.2022.200091
Maculan, E., & Gil, A. (2020). The Rationale and Purposes of Criminal Law and Punishment in Transitional Contexts. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 40(1), 132–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqz033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqz033
Maktaen, P. T., & Pujiyono. (2025). Paradigm Shift in the Purpose of Punishment Based on Thomas Aquinas’ View. International Journal of Social Science and Human Research, 8(10). https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v8-i10-83 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v8-i10-83
Miles, K. (2024). Balancing Interests: Due Process and Propensity Evidence in Sexual Assault Trials. Ohio State Law Journal Sixth Circuit Review, 85.
Moroz, A., & Dinisman, T. (2024). Suffering for Justice: Sexual Violence Victim-Survivors’ Experiences of Going to Court.
Nababan, R. K. (2025). Konsep Hakim Pengawas dan Pengamat: Apakah Masih Relevan?
Padang, M. A., Siregar, B. J., & Rosmalinda. (2024). Keberpihakan Pemidanaan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2023. Locus: Jurnal Konsep Ilmu Hukum, 4(2).
Pakpahan, N. H. (2020). The Use of Flipped Classroom During Covid-19 Pandemic. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 491, 286–291. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201201.051 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201201.051
Pakpahan, N. H. (2021). Legal Punctuality for Submission of Electronic Evidence. Jurnal Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 6(3).
Pakpahan, N. H., & Pakpahan, B. P. (2024). Legal Psychology in Determining Sexual Misconduct Intent. Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum Dan Hak Asasi Manusia, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.35912/jihham.v3i2.2968 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35912/jihham.v3i2.2968
Pakpahan, N. H., & Pakpahan, B. P. (2025). Formulation of Contempt of Court Statute. Equality: Journal of Law and Justice, 2(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.69836/equality-jlj.v2i2.289 DOI: https://doi.org/10.69836/equality-jlj.v2i2.289
Pakpahan, N. H., Prasetyo, T., Setyorini, E. H., & Mangesti, Y. A. (2022). Trial Proving in Electronic Criminal Case Trial. Ius Poenale, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.25041/ip.v3i1.2452 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25041/ip.v3i1.2452
Pakpahan, N. H., Saputra, R., Darmawan, D., Nugraha, B. E. C., & Mujisulistyo, Y. F. (2024). Online Prostitution Service Users in Indonesian Legal Framework. Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis, 5(10). https://doi.org/10.56370/jhlg.v5i10.806 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56370/jhlg.v5i10.806
Pratama, M. I. W., & Daviska, D. (2025). Pedoman Pemidanaan Sebelum KUHP Baru. Jurnal Fakta Hukum, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.58819/jfh.v4i1.180 DOI: https://doi.org/10.58819/jfh.v4i1.180
Purnamawati, S. A., Sunaryo, S., Lestari, E., & Pratiwi, C. S. (2025). Future Crimes: Preparing Humanity for the Disruption Era. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Law Reform (5th INCLAR 2024). https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-362-7_11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-362-7_11
Purnomo, D., & Kusuma, B. H. (2025). Reconstructing the Purpose of Sentencing. Tatohi: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 5(10). https://doi.org/10.47268/tatohi.v5i10.3588 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47268/tatohi.v5i10.3588
Putra, F. W., Frenki, & Vinanda, O. R. (2025). Analisis Fiqh Siyasah terhadap Hakim Pengawasan dan Pengamatan. Jurnal El-Qanuniy, 11(1), 20–35.
Rachman, R. J. N., & Hakim, L. (2024). Comparison of Indonesian Criminal Law with the UK. Widya Gama Law Review, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.31328/wglr.v1i2.596 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31328/wglr.v1i2.596
Rubin, E. (2024). Due Process, Democracy, and the Regulatory State. Florida Law Review Forum, 75.
Sell, A., & Sznycer, D. (2023). Societal Institutions Echo Evolved Human Nature. Evolution and Human Behavior, 44(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.01.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.01.007
Spisy, V. D., Setiawan, M. N., & Afita, C. O. Y. (2025). Pemenuhan Hak Narapidana di Lapas Kelas II B Muara Bungo. Datin Law Journal, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.36355/dlj.v6i1.1702 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36355/dlj.v6i1.1702
Suastuti, E. (2024). Human Rights Protection in Pretrial Objects. Lex Scientia Law Review, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.15294/lslr.v8i2.14667 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/lslr.v8i2.14667
Subroto, M., & Siahaan, A. (2025). Program Pembinaan Berbasis Komunitas terhadap Perilaku Narapidana. Jurnal Pendidikan Tambusai, 9(2).
Sutrisno, Pratiwi, S., & Mardani. (2024). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Residivis Penganiayaan. Jurnal Sosial Humaniora Sigli, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.47647/jsh.v7i2.2419 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47647/jsh.v7i2.2419
Syaepudin, S. H. (2022). Tingkat Kecemasan Narapidana di Lapas Kelas IIB Sumedang.
Triana, I. D. S., Irza, M. Y., & Awaludin, A. (2025). Reformasi KUHAP dan Perlindungan HAM. Al-Zayn: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Hukum, 3(20).
Tripathi, S. M. (2025). Right Against Self-Incrimination. Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, 4(6).
Ubaidullah, L. (2024). Keabsahan Pemeriksaan Saksi Bersama-sama di Persidangan. Indonesia Berdaya, 5(3).
van Berkel, K., & Strasser, C. (2022). Reasoning With and About Norms in Logical Argumentation. Computational Models of Argument, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220164 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220164
Zaltina, P. E., & Nurtjahyo, L. I. (2024). Right to Be Forgotten as Legal Protection for Victims. The Indonesian Journal of Socio-Legal Studies, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.54828/ijsls.2024v3n2.4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54828/ijsls.2024v3n2.4
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Legalis : Journal of Law Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
