Impact of the policy on prisoners

Oct 13, 2025 by orovajewels.com 53 views

Juridical Analysis of the Moratorium on Remission to Special Criminal Inmates: A Critical Examination

Introduction

The remission moratorium policy, as regulated in Government Regulation Number 99 of 2012, has been a subject of controversy in the Indonesian correctional system. This policy limits the granting of remission to prisoners involved in extraordinary crimes, sparking debates about its legitimacy and impact on the rights of prisoners. As a fundamental right, remission is essential for the social reintegration process of prisoners into society. However, the existence of this regulation raises concerns about its compatibility with legal norms and human rights principles. This study aims to provide a juridical analysis of the moratorium on remission to special criminal inmates, examining its implications and potential consequences.

Background

The Indonesian correctional system has undergone significant reforms in recent years, with a focus on rehabilitation and social reintegration. Remission is a crucial aspect of this process, allowing prisoners to serve a reduced sentence in exchange for good behavior and participation in correctional programs. However, the remission moratorium policy has introduced a new layer of complexity, limiting the granting of remission to prisoners involved in extraordinary crimes. This policy is intended to address the concerns of the community, who feel that prisoners involved in such crimes do not deserve the same treatment as others.

Methodology

This study employs a normative juridical legal method, combining library research and field research. The library research involves an analysis of statutory regulations, scientific books, journals, papers, and articles related to the remission moratorium policy. Field research is conducted through interviews with relevant parties, including correctional officials, lawyers, and human rights activists. This mixed-methods approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of the policy's implications and potential consequences.

Theoretical Framework

The remission moratorium policy is based on the principles of justice and human rights. However, its implementation raises concerns about its compatibility with these principles. The policy's criteria for granting remission, as stipulated in Article 34A paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of Government Regulation Number 99 of 2012, require prisoners to meet specific conditions, including willingness to become a Justice Collaborator, payment of full penalty and replacement money, and participation in deradicalization programs. These conditions have been criticized for being overly restrictive and discriminatory.

Critique of the Policy

The remission moratorium policy has been criticized for several reasons. Firstly, it is considered discriminatory, as it targets prisoners involved in extraordinary crimes. Secondly, the policy's criteria for granting remission are overly restrictive, limiting the opportunities for prisoners to participate in correctional programs. Thirdly, the policy's focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation is seen as counterproductive to the correctional system's goals.

Human Rights Implications

The remission moratorium policy raises concerns about its compatibility with human rights principles. The policy's restrictions on remission for prisoners involved in extraordinary crimes may be seen as a violation of their right to equality and non-discrimination. Furthermore, the policy's emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation may be seen as a violation of prisoners' right to dignity and humane treatment.

Conclusion

The remission moratorium policy, as regulated in Government Regulation Number 99 of 2012, has significant implications for the Indonesian correctional system. While its intention is to create justice for the community, its implementation raises concerns about its compatibility with legal norms and human rights principles. This study highlights the need for a review of the policy's principles and criteria, ensuring that the main purpose of the correctional system is achieved without sacrificing the basic rights of prisoners. Efforts to reconcile the sense of justice of the community with prisoners' rights must continue to be carried out, so that both of these interests can go hand in hand.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made:

Review of the policy's principles and criteria: The policy's principles and criteria should be reviewed to ensure that they are compatible with legal norms and human rights principles.
Inclusion of prisoners' rights: The policy should prioritize the inclusion of prisoners' rights, ensuring that their basic rights are respected and protected.
Community participation: The community should be invited to participate in dialogue on justice and how the policy can be applied without ignoring the principles of human rights.
Rehabilitation-focused approach: The policy should focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment, ensuring that prisoners have access to correctional programs and services that support their social reintegration.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations. Firstly, the study's focus on the remission moratorium policy may not capture the broader implications of the policy on the Indonesian correctional system. Secondly, the study's reliance on library research and field research may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the policy's implications. Finally, the study's conclusions may be limited by the availability of data and the perspectives of the participants.

Future Research Directions

Future research should focus on the following areas:

Impact of the policy on prisoners: The study should examine the impact of the policy on prisoners, including their experiences and perceptions of the policy.
Community perspectives: The study should explore the perspectives of the community on the policy, including their concerns and expectations.
Policy implementation: The study should examine the implementation of the policy, including the challenges and opportunities faced by correctional officials and other stakeholders.
Comparative analysis: The study should conduct a comparative analysis of the remission moratorium policy with other correctional policies and practices in Indonesia and other countries.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the Juridical Analysis of the Moratorium on Remission to Special Criminal Inmates

Q: What is the remission moratorium policy, and how does it affect prisoners?

A: The remission moratorium policy, as regulated in Government Regulation Number 99 of 2012, limits the granting of remission to prisoners involved in extraordinary crimes. This policy affects prisoners by restricting their opportunities for remission, which is a fundamental right that supports the social reintegration process.

Q: Why was the remission moratorium policy introduced?

A: The policy was introduced to address the concerns of the community, who feel that prisoners involved in extraordinary crimes do not deserve the same treatment as others. However, the policy's implementation raises concerns about its compatibility with legal norms and human rights principles.

Q: What are the criteria for granting remission under the remission moratorium policy?

A: The policy's criteria for granting remission, as stipulated in Article 34A paragraph 1, 2, and 3 of Government Regulation Number 99 of 2012, require prisoners to meet specific conditions, including willingness to become a Justice Collaborator, payment of full penalty and replacement money, and participation in deradicalization programs.

Q: Is the remission moratorium policy discriminatory?

A: Yes, the policy is considered discriminatory, as it targets prisoners involved in extraordinary crimes. This raises concerns about the policy's compatibility with human rights principles, particularly the right to equality and non-discrimination.

Q: What are the implications of the remission moratorium policy on the Indonesian correctional system?

A: The policy's implications on the Indonesian correctional system are significant. The policy's focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation may be counterproductive to the correctional system's goals, and its restrictions on remission may limit the opportunities for prisoners to participate in correctional programs.

Q: What are the human rights implications of the remission moratorium policy?

A: The policy's human rights implications are significant. The policy's restrictions on remission for prisoners involved in extraordinary crimes may be seen as a violation of their right to equality and non-discrimination. Furthermore, the policy's emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation may be seen as a violation of prisoners' right to dignity and humane treatment.

Q: What are the recommendations for addressing the concerns raised by the remission moratorium policy?

A: The recommendations for addressing the concerns raised by the policy include:

Review of the policy's principles and criteria to ensure compatibility with legal norms and human rights principles.
Inclusion of prisoners' rights in the policy to ensure that their basic rights are respected and protected.
Community participation in dialogue on justice and how the policy can be applied without ignoring the principles of human rights.
Rehabilitation-focused approach to ensure that prisoners have access to correctional programs and services that support their social reintegration.

Q: What are the limitations of this study?

A: The study has several limitations, including:

Focus on the remission moratorium policy may not capture the broader implications of the policy on the Indonesian correctional system.
Reliance on library research and field research may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the policy's implications.
Conclusions may be limited by the availability of data and the perspectives of the participants.

Q: What are the future research directions for this study?

A: Future research should focus on the following areas:

Impact of the policy on prisoners, including their experiences and perceptions of the policy.
Community perspectives on the policy, including their concerns and expectations.
Policy implementation, including the challenges and opportunities faced by correctional officials and other stakeholders.
Comparative analysis of the remission moratorium policy with other correctional policies and practices in Indonesia and other countries.