Search

This article examines the mechanisms for prosecuting and sentencing prisoners convicted of terrorism offences in Indonesia, using case studies to illustrate inconsistencies and discrepancies in legal processes. It begins by briefly outlining the legal processes for criminal sentencing and the realities of sentencing practices in the Indonesian context. Data on arrests, sentencing, and executions of terrorism suspects in the period 2003-2015 are analysed, revealing that over ninety percent of Indonesia's convicted terrorists were sentenced to ten years or less in prison, with only a small percentage receiving longer sentences or the death penalty. The article argues that while sentencing of terrorists is overwhelmingly lenient, the lack of sentencing guidelines, an emphasis on judicial discretion, absence of the doctrine of precedent, lack of access to previous decisions of lower courts, and opacity of sentencing outcomes in reported decisions all contribute to inconsistency in judicial reasoning and sentencing, ultimately denying natural justice to individuals who come before the courts. The second part of the article examines individual cases which illustrate particular aspects of terrorism sentencing, such as excessive lenience or harshness, inaccurate or opaque indictments/judgements, and the treatment of women and child terrorism offenders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the issue of freedom of expression in relation to online humour, particularly in Indonesian law. Despite being an inherent individual right within the broad scope of freedom of expression, there is currently no clear demarcation line in Indonesian law to position humour as an integral aspect of this right and of entertainment. Consequently, forms of humour such as memes, parodies, and satire may potentially be considered as insulting due to the subjective nature of humour and the lack of a consistent interpretation. This legal uncertainty raises concerns about the protection of freedom of expression as a fundamental human right in the present era. Despite the protection granted by the Constitution and various laws, Indonesia's legal framework does not explicitly define humour as a constituent of freedom of expression, thus leaving its interpretation to the discretion of the courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the perceptions of Indonesian Judges in sentencing minor drug offenders. The Judge holds a central role in the administration of justice and, because of the significance of judicial discretion, it is essential to understand how judges come to their sentencing decisions. To develop an understanding of what judges are trying to achieve when sentencing minor drug offenders, a total of 31 judges were interviewed: 28 participants came from District Courts in Urban and Rural jurisdictions in Indonesia (17 from Urban Courts and 11 from Rural Courts) and three were Supreme Court judges. The findings highlight that the process of justice involves not merely the application of the rule of the law or relevant legal codes; rather, how the judiciary balance and interpret the law is a central part of court sentencing practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The issue of people smuggling is one of global concern that many states have responded to by introducing a specific criminal offence of people smuggling. In Indonesia, a country that is a key transit point for asylum seekers heading to Australia, new offences have been introduced since 2011 in order to criminalise people smuggling. In this article we analyse the legal framework that has been established to combat people smuggling in Indonesia, both before and after the reforms of 2011. We consider how arrests for people smuggling have been dealt with by the public prosecutor and the judiciary in practice. We argue that the implementation and outcome of the new offences for people smuggling in Indonesia must be considered within the broader social and political context in which courts are situated. We demonstrate that sentencing practices in people smuggling trials are informed by a range of factors in addition to corruption, including judicial discretion and broader social attitudes towards people smugglers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]