Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Akses terbuka Jurnal SINTA 1

Who Executes Justice? Comparative Institutional Paths from Verdict to Prison

Jambura Law Review · Vol. UME No. 1 (2026) · hlm. 160–189

DOI
10.33756/jlr.v1i1.31642
ISSN
2656-0461, 2654-9255
Terbit
2026-01-31
Penerbit
Universitas Negeri Gorontalo
Bahasa
eng
Lisensi
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0

Abstrak

This article examines sentence-execution control in Indonesia, Thailand, and Tajikistan through the distinction between the Verdict Executor and the Criminal Executor as a basis for penitentiary law reform. It starts from the premise that the post-trial stage, particularly the enforcement of imprisonment, remains one of the least theorized yet most crucial parts of criminal procedure, with direct implications for legal certainty, institutional accountability, and prisoners’ human rights. Using normative legal research and a functional comparative approach, the study analyzes criminal sentence-execution systems, justice and imprisonment frameworks, relevant laws and regulations, institutional structures, and supervisory mechanisms in the three countries. The findings show important differences in the allocation of powers and functions between supervisory and executive bodies. Indonesia reflects an integrated model in which prosecutorial authority extends to the admission of convicts and the administration of sentences. By contrast, Thailand and Tajikistan adopt more differentiated institutional arrangements, with specialized and relatively independent bodies responsible for penitentiary supervision. The analysis concludes that judicial supervision of sentence enforcement and the execution of criminal punishment involve distinct doctrinal functions that should be institutionally separated. Such separation would reduce overlapping authority, minimize conflict, and improve systemic order and efficiency. In this context, the article argues that autonomous supervision of sentence execution should be recognized as a doctrinal category within criminal procedure law. It further proposes electronic supervision as a regulatory and procedural instrument to strengthen transparency, proportionality, and human rights compliance during the execution stage. Overall, the research demonstrates that without effective supervision of sentence execution, meaningful reform of the sentence-enforcement system and the rule of law remains unattainable.

Kata kunci

Jaringan kolaborasi para penulis

40 penulis · 159 tautan kepenulisan bersama · 38 lintas organisasi · menampilkan 40 yang paling banyak terhubung

Arahkan kursor atau ketuk sebuah nama untuk menyorot rekan penulisnya. Klik dua kali untuk membuka halaman penulis.

  • State University of Semarang
  • Novena University
  • Tarumanagara University
  • Padjadjaran University
  • University of Bengkulu
  • National Defence University of Malaysia
  • Dhofar University
  • Organisasi lain
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Organisasi berbeda
  • Organisasi sama
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Garis lebih tebal = lebih banyak artikel bersama · lingkaran lebih besar = lebih banyak artikel
Tampilkan sebagai tabel
Rekan penulisOrganisasiArtikel bersama
Dian LatifianiState University of Semarang12
Rasdi RasdiState University of Semarang11
Heru SetyantoState University of Semarang10
Ali MasyharState University of Semarang9
Riska AlkadriState University of Semarang7
Indah Sri UtariState University of Semarang7
Septhian Eka AdiyatmaState University of Semarang7
Nadiyah Meyliana PutriState University of Semarang6
Waspiah WaspiahState University of Semarang6
Ngboawaji Daniel NteNovena University6
Muhammad Iqbal BaiquniState University of Semarang6
Rohadhatul AisyState University of Semarang5
Shofriya Qonitatin AbidahState University of Semarang5
Nurul FibriantiState University of Semarang5
Bayangsari WedhatamiState University of Semarang5
Riki JuliantoAfiliasi tidak diketahui5
Zico Junius FernandoUniversity of Bengkulu5
Muhammad Wahyu Saiful HudaState University of Semarang4
Asyaffa Ridzqi AmandhaState University of Semarang4
Muhammad Azil MaskurState University of Semarang4
Zaharuddin Sani Ahmah SabriNational Defence University of Malaysia4
Syaiful AminState University of Semarang3
Lyna LatifahState University of Semarang3
R. Benny RiyantoState University of Semarang3
Choirul FuadState University of Semarang3
Layla Putri AulyaState University of Semarang3
Rodiyah RodiyahState University of Semarang3
Fadhel Arjuna AdindaPadjadjaran University3
Ngaboawaji Daniel NteNovena University3
Souad Ahmed EzzeroualiDhofar University3
Asmarani RamliState University of Semarang3
Adilia Putri KusumaState University of Semarang2
Siti Amatil UlfiyahState University of Semarang2
Amel Ellsamia IndiyaniState University of Semarang2
Duhita Driyah SupraptiState University of Semarang2
Valerio SebastianUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona2
Jeremy Zefanya Yaka ArvanteState University of Semarang2

Afiliasi berasal dari OpenAlex; metadata OAI-PMH jurnal tidak memuatnya. Penulis tanpa ID OpenAlex dicocokkan berdasarkan nama, sehingga dua orang bisa tergabung atau satu orang bisa terpisah.

Sumber metadata: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) http://ejurnal.ung.ac.id/index.php/jalrev/oai, pertama di-harvest 9 Nov 2026, terakhir terlihat 9 Nov 2026.
Metadata asli (oai_dc)
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en-US">Who Executes Justice? Comparative Institutional Paths from Verdict to Prison</dc:title>
	<dc:creator>Widyawati, Anis</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Adhari, Ade</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Arifin, Ridwan</dc:creator>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en-US">The Verdict Executor; Criminal Executor; Comparative Law; Penitentiary Reform</dc:subject>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en-US">This article examines sentence-execution control in Indonesia, Thailand, and Tajikistan through the distinction between the Verdict Executor and the Criminal Executor as a basis for penitentiary law reform. It starts from the premise that the post-trial stage, particularly the enforcement of imprisonment, remains one of the least theorized yet most crucial parts of criminal procedure, with direct implications for legal certainty, institutional accountability, and prisoners’ human rights. Using normative legal research and a functional comparative approach, the study analyzes criminal sentence-execution systems, justice and imprisonment frameworks, relevant laws and regulations, institutional structures, and supervisory mechanisms in the three countries. The findings show important differences in the allocation of powers and functions between supervisory and executive bodies. Indonesia reflects an integrated model in which prosecutorial authority extends to the admission of convicts and the administration of sentences. By contrast, Thailand and Tajikistan adopt more differentiated institutional arrangements, with specialized and relatively independent bodies responsible for penitentiary supervision. The analysis concludes that judicial supervision of sentence enforcement and the execution of criminal punishment involve distinct doctrinal functions that should be institutionally separated. Such separation would reduce overlapping authority, minimize conflict, and improve systemic order and efficiency. In this context, the article argues that autonomous supervision of sentence execution should be recognized as a doctrinal category within criminal procedure law. It further proposes electronic supervision as a regulatory and procedural instrument to strengthen transparency, proportionality, and human rights compliance during the execution stage. Overall, the research demonstrates that without effective supervision of sentence execution, meaningful reform of the sentence-enforcement system and the rule of law remains unattainable.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en-US">Universitas Negeri Gorontalo</dc:publisher>
	<dc:contributor xml:lang="en-US">Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia</dc:contributor>
	<dc:date>2026-01-31</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:type xml:lang="en-US"></dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://ejurnal.ung.ac.id/index.php/jalrev/article/view/31642</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.33756/jlr.v1i1.31642</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en-US">Jambura Law Review; VOLUME 8 NO. 1 JANUARY 2026; 160-189</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2656-0461</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2654-9255</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.33756/jlr.v1i1</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://ejurnal.ung.ac.id/index.php/jalrev/article/view/31642/13063</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">Copyright (c) 2026 Anis Widyawati, Ade Adhari, Ridwan Arifin</dc:rights>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>