Revisiting Criminal Justice: From Retribution to Restoration in a Technological Era

Authors

  • Hermansyah Universitas Jayabaya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61978/legalis.v3i2.792

Keywords:

Restorative Justice, Criminal Justice Reform, Comparative Judicial Systems, Digital Justice, Retributive Justice, Artificial Intelligence In Law, Transitional Legal Systems

Abstract

This narrative review explores contemporary challenges and reform trends in comparative criminal justice systems, emphasizing the interaction between retributive and restorative approaches and the integration of digital technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI). The study aimed to identify effective reform strategies and the systemic factors influencing their success. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across Scopus, Google Scholar, and other academic databases using Boolean operators to locate studies published in the last ten years, with inclusion criteria focusing on relevance, methodology, and language. Selected studies included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method research examining judicial systems in civil and common law countries. Results reveal that reform efforts are significantly shaped by institutional transparency, civic engagement, and corruption control. Countries like Rwanda and Germany demonstrated progress through inclusive reforms, whereas developing nations such as Indonesia face obstacles due to institutional limitations. Retributive models, particularly in the United States, contribute to high recidivism and neglect victims' needs. In contrast, restorative practices in Canada and New Zealand show enhanced outcomes in offender rehabilitation and victim satisfaction. Moreover, the use of AI in judicial systems, while improving efficiency, raises ethical concerns regarding algorithmic fairness and data governance. The findings highlight the urgent need for balanced policy frameworks that promote restorative justice, community engagement, and ethical integration of technology. Future research should examine adaptive models of justice reform suited to varying socio-political environments to enhance justice delivery globally.

References

Anggraeny, K., Fernando, Z., & Rinaldi, K. (2025). Robot prosecutors and the future of criminal justice in Indonesia: Innovation, ethics, and legal implications. Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law), 12(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v12n1.a2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v12n1.a2

Biddulph, S., Nesossi, E., Sapio, F., & Trevaskes, S. (2017). Detention and its reforms in the PRC. China Law and Society Review, 2(1), 1–62. https://doi.org/10.1163/25427466-00201001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/25427466-00201001

Corda, A., & Hester, R. (2021). Leaving the shining city on a hill: A plea for rediscovering comparative criminal justice policy in the United States. International Criminal Justice Review, 31(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567720981626 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567720981626

Daniels, G. (2013). Restorative justice. Probation Journal, 60(3), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550513493370 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550513493370

Grande, E. (2019). Comparative approaches to criminal procedure. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Criminal Law (pp. 66–88). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190659837.013.4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190659837.013.4

Green, C., Estroff, S., Yarborough, B., Spofford, M., Solloway, M., Kitson, R., … & Perrin, N. (2014). Directions for future patient-centered and comparative effectiveness research for people with serious mental illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 40(Suppl_1), i-S94. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbt170 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbt170

Hem‐Lee‐Forsyth, S., Viechweg, N., Estevez, E., Walcott‐Pierre, T., & Wong, L. (2024). Sex trafficking in the Caribbean: A comparative analysis of policy responses in the Dominican Republic and Trinidad and Tobago. World Medical & Health Policy, 16(4), 600–617. https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.623 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.623

Jiang, N. (2014). China and international human rights. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-44902-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-44902-4

Joseph, A., Rao, I., & Singh, N. (2025). Towards standardized forensic DNA practices: Comparative analysis of forensic DNA quality management systems in India and the UK. Multidisciplinary Science Journal, 7(9), 2025507. https://doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2025507 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2025507

Jupp, J. (2014). Legal transplants as tools for post-conflict criminal law reform: Justification and evaluation. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 3(2), 381–406. https://doi.org/10.7574/cjicl.03.02.192 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7574/cjicl.03.02.192

Kremens, K. (2021). Powers of the prosecutor in criminal investigation. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003018247 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003018247

Malloch, M., & McIvor, G. (2013). Women, punishment and social justice. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203084755 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203084755

Mohanty, P., & Stephen, T. (2025). Beyond human bias: An LLM-driven comparative analysis of the Indian Penal Code (1860) and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023). Statute Law Review, 46(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmaf014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmaf014

Mulyadi, M., Fernando, Z., Putra, P., & Anditya, A. (2024). Unleashing justice’s future: The dawn of neuro-cognitive risk assessments (NCRA) in transforming rehabilitation. IJCLS, 9(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.15294/ijcls.v9i1.50152 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/ijcls.v9i1.50152

Paterson, C. (2021). Victim-oriented police reform: A comparative perspective. In Police-Citizen Relations Across the World (pp. 79–95). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77565-0_5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77565-0_5

Proposing restorative justice models as alternative approaches to addressing criminal matters: A case study of judicial systems in civil and common law countries. (2024). Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 7(4), 93–119. https://doi.org/10.33327/ajee-18-7.4-a000108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-7.4-a000108

Reichel, P., & Suzuki, Y. (2015). Japan’s lay judge system. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(3), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567715588948 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567715588948

Widowati, W., & Giang, V. (2025). Child punishment versus the principle of non-discrimination in the perspective of human rights: A legal comparison between Indonesia and Vietnam. Jurnal Suara Hukum, 7(1), 245–273. https://doi.org/10.26740/jsh.v7n1.p245-273 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26740/jsh.v7n1.p245-273

Willems, A. (2014). The United Nations principles and guidelines on access to legal aid in criminal justice systems. New Criminal Law Review, 17(2), 184–219. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2014.17.2.184 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2014.17.2.184

Zawawi, M., Yusof, W., Nasohah, Z., Omar, A., & Souit, S. (2025). Rethinking hisbah and sharia proceduralism: A comparative approach to justice in contemporary Islamic law. Milrev Metro Islamic Law Review, 4(1), 234–268. https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v4i1.10391 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32332/milrev.v4i1.10391

Downloads

Published

2025-04-30

How to Cite

Hermansyah. (2025). Revisiting Criminal Justice: From Retribution to Restoration in a Technological Era. Legalis : Journal of Law Review, 3(2), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.61978/legalis.v3i2.792

Issue

Section

Articles