Comparison of penal mediation regulations in the criminal justice system of Indonesia and other countries

• Musa Darwin Pane ^[1] ; Bettina Meiser ^[2] ; Diah Pudjiastuti ^[3]
  1. [1] Universitas Komputer Indonesia, Faculty of Law
  2. [2] University of New South Wales, School of Clinical Medicine
  3. [3] Universitas Wanita Internasional, Faculty of Law

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Sortuz: Oñati Journal of Emergent Socio-legal Studies, ISSN-e 1988-0847, Vol. 16, Nº. 1, 2026, págs. 112-131
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • Penal mediation is a formal victim–offender mediation mechanism embedded in the criminal justice process and grounded in restorative justice principles. While several European countries, such as Germany, France, Austria, Poland, and especially the Netherlands, have introduced penal mediation through specific statutory provisions, professional accreditation schemes, and dedicated mediation institutions, Indonesia still relies on fragmented administrative regulations at the police and prosecutorial level without a comprehensive legislative basis. This article compares the institutional design and legal authority of penal mediation frameworks in Indonesia and selected European jurisdictions, with particular emphasis on the Dutch model. Using a normative–juridical approach combined with structured comparative socio‑legal analysis, it examines three analytical dimensions: (1) legal basis and scope of application, (2) institutional architecture and mediator accreditation, and (3) procedural safeguards for victims and offenders. The study finds that Indonesia’s current reliance on Police Regulation No. 8 of 2021 and Prosecutor Regulation No. 15 of 2020 produces discretionary and uneven practices, whereas the Dutch system integrates penal mediation across all stages of proceedings under a clear statutory and institutional framework. The article’s original contribution lies in specifying the structural conditions under which elements of the Dutch model could be transplanted, in a context‑sensitive way, into Indonesia’s pluralistic legal system to enhance consistency, legitimacy, and public trust in penal mediation.