Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Akses terbuka Jurnal

Comparative Analysis of Witness Protection Law in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Australia

Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies · Vol. 9 No. 2 (2024) · hlm. 503–536

DOI
10.15294/jils.v9i2.1498
ISSN
2548-1592, 2548-1584
Terbit
2024-11-30
Penerbit
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Bahasa
eng
Lisensi
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0

Abstrak

Witness protection is the cornerstone of an effective criminal justice system. Therefore, it is important to ensure the quality of witness protection law. This study uses normative method to compare witness protection law in Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia. The result shows several similarities and differences in 5 areas namely a) the subject of protection; b) selection process; c) rights and obligations of parties; d) institutional arrangement; and e) criminal sanctions. Each country has its own approach to regulate the witness protection. Indonesia is progressive in terms of giving special rights for 6 different categories of subject of protections. For instance, special right for compensation and restitution for victims of particular crimes. Indonesia also encourage justice collaborator to give evidence by promising leniency, parole or remission. Conversely, Australia explicitly clarify that the witness protection must not be interpreted as rewarding criminals. Unlike Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia grants equal rights for all witness. Despite such differences, these 3 countries have similarity in terms of the imposition of selection process to ensure the protection is prioritized for those who need it the most. The witness protection must be maintained to balance the interest of witness, accuse and the society. The goal is not to give excessive protection for witnesses, but to adjust the protection according to the limitation of resources and financial. Moreover, Indonesia should adopt the disclosure requirement as implemented in Malaysia and Australia to prevent the witness from using the program to circumvent his legal or financial obligations.

Kata kunci

Jaringan kolaborasi para penulis

16 penulis · 36 tautan kepenulisan bersama

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

  • 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
I Made Chandra MandiraAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Miriam ImarhiagbeAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Putu Yasodhara Sthita Brahmani DuarsaAfiliasi tidak diketahui2
Putu Eva Ditayani AntariAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Febriansyah RamadhanAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Bayu Kasa PranataAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Dewa Ayu Putri SukadanaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Sadida NizamAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Dewi BungaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Gde Made SwardhanaAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Diah Ratna Sari HariyantoAfiliasi tidak diketahui1

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) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/jils/oai, pertama di-harvest 6 Nov 2026, terakhir terlihat 8 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">Comparative Analysis of Witness Protection Law in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Australia</dc:title>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Arsawati, Ni Nyoman Juwita</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Putri, Luh Putu Yeyen Karista</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Wulandari, Ni Gusti Agung Ayu Mas Tri </dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Tajuddin, Hanifah Haydar Ali </dc:creator>
	<dc:creator xml:lang="en">Withnall, Eric Gordon </dc:creator>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">witness protection program</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">justice collaborator</dc:subject>
	<dc:subject xml:lang="en">witness testimony</dc:subject>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en">Witness protection is the cornerstone of an effective criminal justice system. Therefore, it is important to ensure the quality of witness protection law. This study uses normative method to compare witness protection law in Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia. The result shows several similarities and differences in 5 areas namely a) the subject of protection; b) selection process; c) rights and obligations of parties; d) institutional arrangement; and e) criminal sanctions. Each country has its own approach to regulate the witness protection. Indonesia is progressive in terms of giving special rights for 6 different categories of subject of protections. For instance, special right for compensation and restitution for victims of particular crimes. Indonesia also encourage justice collaborator to give evidence by promising leniency, parole or remission. Conversely, Australia explicitly clarify that the witness protection must not be interpreted as rewarding criminals. Unlike Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia grants equal rights for all witness. Despite such differences, these 3 countries have similarity in terms of the imposition of selection process to ensure the protection is prioritized for those who need it the most. The witness protection must be maintained to balance the interest of witness, accuse and the society. The goal is not to give excessive protection for witnesses, but to adjust the protection according to the limitation of resources and financial. Moreover, Indonesia should adopt the disclosure requirement as implemented in Malaysia and Australia to prevent the witness from using the program to circumvent his legal or financial obligations.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en">Universitas Negeri Semarang</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2024-11-30</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/jils/article/view/1498</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.15294/jils.v9i2.1498</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en">Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies; Vol. 9 No. 2 (2024): Reforming Legal Frameworks: Justice, Rights, and Innovation in Indonesia and Beyond; 503-536</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2548-1592</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2548-1584</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.15294/jils.v9i2</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/jils/article/view/1498/2672</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">Copyright (c) 2024 Ni Nyoman Juwita Arsawati,  Luh Putu Yeyen Karista Putri,  Ni Gusti Agung Ayu Mas Tri Wulandari,  Hanifah Haydar Ali Tajuddin, Eric Gordon Withnall (Author)</dc:rights>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>