DOI: https://doi.org/10.22373/petita.v6i2.119
REVITALIZATION ON MANAGEMENT OF CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION:
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM IN INDONESIA
ALMA QARNAIN
Faculty of Law, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia E-mail: [email protected]
NATHALINA NAIBAHO
Faculty of Law, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: Criminalization in Indonesia has changed its philosophy from “prison” to
“correctional.” Unfortunately, in practice, correctional system in correctional institution still cannot be called rehabilitative because of problems such as overstaying of the inmates, high recidivism rates, overcrowded, riots in prisons and detention house, frequent prison escapes, narcotics transactions in prisons, to illegal levies. To overcome this, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights then came up with the idea of “Revitalization of the Correctional System” through the Ministry of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 35 of 2018.
The revitalization prioritizes changes in the behavior of inmates and turns overcrowding into the opportunity to create superior human resources through four stages: super- maximum security, maximum security, medium security, and minimum security. To develop the Correctional System in Indonesia, this research also used comparative studies with other countries in the penitentiary institution. The research concluded that the revitalization of the correctional facilities had not caused significant changes because there are several obstacles, so structural and systemic changes are needed to help the success of this revitalization.
Keywords: Criminal Law Policy, Imprisonment, Correctional Revitalization, Overcrowded.
Abstrak: Paradigma pemenjaraan di Indonesia telah berubah menjadi pemasyarakatan, tetapi dalam praktiknya, ternyata tidak banyak yang berubah. Pemasyarakatan masih belum dapat disebut rehabilitatif karena masih banyak permasalahan seperti overstaying, tingkat residivisme yang tinggi, overcrowded, kerusuhan yang seringkali terjadi di Lapas dan Rutan, sering kaburnya warga binaan, maraknya peredaran narkotika di dalam Lapas dan Rutan, hingga terjadi pungutan liar. Untuk mengatasinya, Kementerian Hukum dan HAM kemudian memunculkan suatu ide “Revitalisasi Penyelenggaraan Pemasyarakatan” melalui Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan HAM Nomor 35 Tahun 2018. Revitalisasi pemasyarakatan mengutamakan perubahan perilaku warga binaan dan mengubah tantangan overcrowded Lapas dan Rutan menjadi peluang untuk menciptakan SDM yang unggul melalui empat tahapan pembinaan, yaitu super maximum security, maximum security, medium security, dan minimum security berdasarkan tingkat risiko yang dimiliki oleh warga binaan.
Penelitian ini bersifat normatif dengan mengutamakan studi kepustakaan, didukung oleh wawancara dan observasi yang penulis lakukan di berbagai UPT Pemasyarakatan untuk mengonfirmasi data yang penulis temukan dari studi dokumen. Untuk menemukan solusi atas permasalahan pemasyarakatan, diadakan pula perbandingan dengan negara-negara
yang sukses di bidang pemasyarakatan. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, dapat disimpulkan bahwa revitalisasi pemasyarakatan belum menimbulkan perubahan yang cukup berarti karena terdapat beberapa hambatan, sehingga diperlukan perubahan dari segi struktural dan sistemik untuk membantu menyukseskan revitalisasi ini.
Kata Kunci: Pemidanaan, Pemenjaraan, Revitalisasi Pemasyarakatan, Overcrowded Introduction
Historically, prior to the correctional concept, criminal punishment in Indonesia focused on imprisonment to prevent, rehabilitate or guide criminals. Imprisonment was only known in Indonesia during the Dutch East Indies colonial administration, which imposed imprisonment for all residents of the Dutch East Indies through the Wetboek van Strafrecht Voor Nederlandsch Indie (WvS) 1915, which came into force in 1918. Laws and regulations governing imprisonment; the Gevangenis Reglement dated 10 December 1917, and Staatsblad 1917 Number 708 were also made. This ordinance aimed for punishment in the retaliation (retributive) form. The exitance of post-colonial prisons until Indonesia was free from colonialism was inhumane. Therefore, Sahardjo, the first pioneer of the correctional concept based on the protection philosophy, was compelled to abolish the suffering of the convicts in prison. According to Sahardjo, imprisonment is formulated as a tool to guide convicts to repent and become useful members of society.1
This conception was accepted as a treatment of offenders and eventually became known as the “Correctional System .”In subsequent developments, the correctional concept promoted by Sahardjo took a long time to be integrated into the Correctional Law.2 Provisions regarding correctional facilities in the Correctional Law classify inmates based on age, gender, length of sentence imposed, type of crime, and other criteria following the needs or development of treatment.3 In practice, the classification of inmates based on these criteria still causes problems such as riots and overcrowded, which violates the rights of the inmates.
Based on this fact, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights changed the provisions of the correctional system through the revitalization program for the implementation of correctional facilities listed in the Regulation of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights Number 35 of 2018. In this decree, prisoners are placed based on the level of risk into Super Maximum Security Prisons; Maximum Security Prison; Medium Security Prison; or Minimum Security Prison. 4
1 S Soemadi Pradja dan Romli Atmasasmita R. Achmad, Sistem Pemasyarakatan Indonesia [Indonesian Correctional System] (1st edn, Bina Cipta 1979), p. 12; Colm Fox, ‘Indonesia. Indonesia: Twenty Years of Democracy By Jamie S. Davidson Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Pp. 76.
Bibliography, Footnotes.’ (2020) 51 Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 495; PS Berman, The Oxford Handbook of Global Legal Pluralism (Oxford University Press 2020).
2 Wiwik Sri Widiarty Petrus Irwan Pandjaitan, Pembaharuan Pemikiran Dr. Sahardjo Mengenai Pemasyarakatan Narapidana (Indhill Co 2008), p. 17.
3 Indonesia, Correctional Law, Law No. 12 Year 1995, LN No. 77 Year 1995, TLN No. 3614, Article 12 section (1).
4 Indonesia, Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia [Minister of Law and Human Rights], Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Tentang Revitalisasi Penyelenggaraan Pemasyarakatan [Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights concerning the Revital; Tajul Arifin, ‘The Guarantee of the Application of Capital Punishment on a Peacefull and Harmonious Life: Proof From Around the World’ (2019) 4 Petita : Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Syariah 56; Mohd.Hisham Mohd.
Kamal, ‘Human Rights Perspectives on Issues in the Implementation of Islamic Criminal Law In Malaysia’ (2019) vol 4 Petita : Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Syariah 69; A Hamid Sarong & Nur A Fadhil Lubis, ‘The Child Rights In Islamic Law With A Special Focus On Aceh’ (2019) Volume 4 Petita : Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Syariah.
on prison population management. To overcome the overcrowding problem in prisons, the Minister of Law and Human Rights issued decree number 35 of 2018 concerning the revitalization of the Correctional System. The Minister of Law and Human Rights efforts to rehabilitate inmates and regulate the prison population were carried out by classifying the focus of treatment into several levels, starting from Super Maximum Security, Maximum Security, Medium Security, and Minimum Security. Thus, this study investigates the “behavior change” concept brought about by the Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation 35 of 2018.
Changes Brought by Correctional Revitalization
The main focus of the Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 35 of 2018 is to remodel the functions of general and narcotic prisons/detention centers. Previously, these prisons/detention centers were multipurpose and changed into single-purpose by placing inmates in prisons and detention centers according to changes in behavior and the level of risk. Prior to the correctional system reform in decree Number 35 of 2018, the regulations regarding the service of prisoners in the Detention Center, the guidance of inmates in prisons, the guidance of clients by the prison authorities, and the management of state booty (basan) and seized goods (baran) at State Storehouse for Seized Goods (RUPBASAN) were very different. The reform of correctional regulations in the Minister of Law and Human Rights decree Number 35 of 2018 concerning Correctional Revitalization is as follows:
The correctional principle previously was to rehabilitate inmates so that they do not repeat their crime and do not endanger the community. In the correctional system revitalization, the resocialization principle focuses on encouraging behavior change and turning overcrowding from challenges into opportunities to create skilfull human resources on an industrial scale. Expectations for the resocialization of inmates are increased. In the correctional system revitalization, the reform includes making the General Prison and Narcotics a single purpose of focusing on rehabilitating and distributing the number of inmates evenly.
In addition, there are also changes in terms of the classification of inmates. Prior to issuing decree number 35 of 2018, inmates were classified based on age, gender, length of sentence, and type of crime. Meanwhile, the Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 35 of 2018 stated that after the initial placement, the classification of inmates is based more on behavior changes and minimize the level of risk of the inmates, regardless of the criminal period.
Before the inmates are placed in a specific Correctional Technical Implementation Unit (UPT), it is necessary to assess the inmates first, carried out by the Correctional Counselor (PK) of Correctional Center (Bapas). Prior to the correctional revitalization, the inmate assessment was carried out using the Indonesian Residivist Risk Assessment (RRI) and Criminogenic methods only as of the basis for conducting Social Research (Litmas) and the Correctional Observer Team (TPP) session. In the Minister of Law and Human Rights Decree Number 35 of 2018, the assessment method was developed, namely the 5-dimensional assessment method.
This dimensionals method consists of four variables. Variable I is the Risk Dimension which consists of security risk, safety risk, stability risk, the risk to society, and health risk. Variable II is the length of imprisonment calculated in months. Variable III is the remaining imprisonment period calculated in months, and Variable IV is the Crime Variable
which is seen based on the type of crime committed by the inmates. However, there are problems with the four variables. The initial placement does not fully emphasize changes in the inmate’s behavior only. There are still crime variables, length of imprisonment, and remaining imprisonment periods that affect inmates’ placement in a UPT. This condition also explains why the results of the initial placement screening mapped Super Maximum Security for high-risk inmate cases, while general crimes tend to be classified as Medium and Minimum Security imprisonment.
Based on the Circular of the Director of Community Conseling and Child Alleviation (Bimbingan Kemasyarakatan dan Pengentasan Anak-BISPA) Number PAS6-176- PK.01.04.03 of 2019 Regarding Behavior Change Assessment and Meeting Needs for Clients, the following are the details of the Social Research (Litmas) assessment:
1. Initial Placement Litmas is to determine the placement of the convict to prison by the level of risk classification after the decision is final and binding, accompanied by the 5-dimensional Placement assessment results;
2. Initial treatment Litmas is to recommend an initial coaching program in prisons, accompanied by the results of the Indonesian Resident Risk Assessment (RRI) and Criminogenic Needs;
3. Litmas for Advanced Development is to recommend further development programs in prisons, accompanied by the assessment results of Indonesian Resident Risk and Criminogenic Needs;
4. Transfer Litmas provides recommendations for the transfer of prisoners from prisons with certain classifications to prisons with lower or higher classifications. Equipped with the results of a reassessment using a 5-dimensional instrument to determine the feasibility of transfer, Indonesian Residivist Risk and Criminogenic Needs;
5. Final treatment Litmas is to recommend a final coaching program in prisons, accompanied by the assessment results of Indonesian Resident Risk and Criminogenic Needs;
After going through the Social Research and the Correctional Observer Team (TPP) trial based on the 5-dimensional assessment, the inmate is classified as a risk level, whether the inmate is in the Super Maximum Security, Maximum Security, Medium Security, or Minimum-Security categories. There are also new regulations related to prisoner services, inmate rehabilitation, guiding clients, and managing state booty (basan) and seized goods (baran). In inmate services, the placement of inmates in the detention center is carried out by considering age, gender, and the level of risk assessment based on the Litmas results. The Detainee Service Program includes personality services and legal services.
Personality services include religious awareness activities, national and state awareness, legal awareness, intellectual competence, psychological counseling, and rehabilitation and the legal services include legal counseling and legal education. Detention services are carried out by individual and/or group methods. For prisoners who have been determined to be convicts, Litmas must be carried out to measure the level of risk that will be used for recommendations to determine the placement of convicts in:
a. Super Maximum Security Prison;
b. Maximum Security Prison; or c. Medium Security Prison
The Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 35 of 2018 is still unclear in defining the Super Maximum Security to Minimum Security levels as a security classification level, even though substantially, this level is more directed to the stages/
levels of providing treatment to inmates. Before the correctional revitalization, the
as mentioned in the Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights Number 35 of 2018 regarding inmate treatment.
1. Early-stage treatment includes:
a. the observation period, introduction, and environmental research is a maximum of 1 (one) month;
b. planning of personality and self-reliance development programs;
c. implementation of personality and independence development programs; and d. assessment of the implementation of the early-stage treatment program.
2. Advanced stage treatment includes:
a. planning of advanced coaching programs;
b. implementation of advanced coaching programs;
c. evaluation of the implementation of advanced coaching programs;
d. planning and implementation of assimilation programs.
3. The final stage of treatment includes:
a. integration program planning;
b. implementation of integration programs;
c. the termination of the final stage of treatment implementation.
Correctional revitalization changes the stages of treatment/development into levels according to the risks faced by the inmates concerned, consisting of the following levels:
1. Super Maximum Security Prison: (Individual Personality Development) a. developing religious awareness;
b. developing national and state awareness;
c. developing legal awareness; and d. psychological counseling.
2. Maximum Security Prison: (Group Personality Development) a. developing religious awareness;
b. developing national and state awareness;
c. developing legal awareness;
d. intellectual competence development;
e. psychological counseling; and f. rehabilitation
3. Medium Security Prison: (Personality and Independence Development) a. education and training for basic skills;
b. education and training for intermediate skills; and
c. education and training for advanced skills to obtain a certificate of expertise by the head of the prison.
4. Minimum Security Prison:
Production of goods or services on an industrial scale is carried out through assimilation and reintegration programs. If there is a change in attitude and behavior, increasing competence and self-ability, independence, and level of productivity, the inmate is given wages based on the work contract.
Actually, the Super Maximum Security to Minimum Security levels are levels in providing treatment to inmates, not towards the security level. Regarding the inmate placement in
a Correctional UPT, the change in this Client treatment lies in the method and type of assessment carried out. There is a quality improvement of social research (Litmas) used for risk level assessment and provide recommendations for; inmates placement in prisons according to the classification; development needs by the classification level of prisons;
and the inmate transfer. In addition to Litmas with RRI and Criminogenic instruments, a new instrument is used to assess behavioral changes and risk levels, namely the 5 Dimensional instrument.5
In this revitalization, a barcode system is used in data collection and management of booty and seized goods by RUPBASAN and integrated data between the Detention center and RUPBASAN. Regulation Number 35 of 2018 restricts and regulates the right of remission, assimilation, leave to visit family, parole, leave before release, and conditional leave, which was previously granted to all criminal acts that have met specific requirements.6 Inmates in the category of endangering state security and/or public safety placed in Super Maximum Security Prisons are not given the right to get remission, assimilation, take a leave to visit family, parole, leave before release, and conditional or special leave.
Challenges in Implementation of Correctional System Revitalization
After the author conducted research in several Correctional UPTs, the data showed that the Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 35 of 2018 for the Gunung Sindur Prison and detention center had partially implemented. However, the problems were found in implementing the Minister regulation at the Gunung Sindur prison with a dual function, as Maximum Security in three blocks and Super Maximum Security in one block that implements one man one cell and there must still be individual personality development. The condition occurs in Maximum Security Prison, where independence development for inmates is still implemented, even though it should not be done. Then, the Super Maximum Security function was even applied to the Gunung Sindur detention center, while in the detention center, there was no treatment/development for inmates, including personality development. Moreover, there are also obstacles in terms of facilities and infrastructure.
At the same time, The Salemba Prison, categorized as a Maximum Security prison, is still implementing independence development for inmates even though the Minister regulation Number 35 of 2018 mentioned there is no longer any independence development at the Maximum Security Prison.
Meanwhile, the Salemba Prison has not yet implemented the revitalization mandated by Minister Regulation Number 35 of 2018. Even the screening for the initial placement of inmates has not been carried out. In contrast to the Salemba Prison, Cipinang Prison has started revitalizing the system even though the implementation is only in the screening stage. However, because the inmate is still at the initial placement stage, the inmate is still being transferred based on the length of the sentence, not behavior changes. Inmates were transferred not because of a reduced level of risk but because they were overcrowded in their original prison.
Similarly, Cibinong Prison has also started implementing the Minister of Law and Human
5 Direktorat Jenderal Pemasyarakatan, Surat Edaran tentang Penilaian Perubahan Perilaku dan Pemenuhan Kebutuhan Bagi Klien [Circular on Behavior Change Assessment and Needs Fulfillment for Clients], SE No. PAS6-176-PK.01.04.03 Year 2019.
6 Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia, Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia tentang Syarat dan tata Cara Pemberian Remisi, Asimilasi, Cuti Mengunjungi Keluarga, Pembebasan Bersyarat, Cuti Menjelang Bebas, dan Cuti Bersyarat [Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights concernin. Permenkumham No. 3 Year 2018, LN No. 282 Year 2018.
there is still a one-person one-cell block (specifically for corruptors) even though the one-person one-cell block should only exist in Super Maximum Security, not in Medium Security like Cibinong Prison. In addition, the Cibinong Prison is still categorized as an open camp, such as the Minimum Security Prison.
The Ciangir Open Prison has also implemented correctional revitalization. Almost all of the provisions in the Minister Decree Number 35 of 2018 are implemented, except work contracts because they are still in the land clearing stage. However, the placement of development activities for inmates is not determined based on Litmas and TPP sessions but only based on basic skill interviews by correctional officers. Apart from that, the Ciangir Open Prison is the UPT that best reflects the correctional system revitalization even though it is still a new UPT.
In Correctional Institution for Children (LPKA) Jakarta, the Minister legislation Number 35 of 2018 has not been implemented. The implementation obstacle is that the Jakarta LPKA building is still joint with the Salemba Prison building so that juvenile inmates are still mixing with adult inmates. At the same time, LPKA Tangerang has not implemented correctional revitalization. The reason is the conflict of regulations with the Child Criminal Justice System (SPPA) Law, where juveniles in Correctional institutions can already assimilate education within three months. This condition causes the revitalization legislation not to affect the resocialization process for children inmates.
In the studied Correctional Centers (Bapas), the researchers found almost the same conditions for revitalization implementation. All of the four Correctional Centers (Bapas) visited to conduct interviews with Bapas Correctional Counselor (PK) have implemented the Minister Regulation Number 35 of 2018 by carrying out the screening for initial placements, but solely in terms of geographic scope. The East-North Jakarta Correctional Centers have screened inmates at Cipinang Prison, Cipinang Detention Center, and Pondok Bambu Detention Center. Then, the South Jakarta Correctional Centers have also screened inmates at the Cipinang Detention Center. Meanwhile, the West Jakarta Prison has screened inmates at the Salemba Detention Center, Cipinang Detention Center, Pondok Bambu Detention Center, Salemba Prison, and Cipinang Prison. The Central Jakarta Prison has screened inmates at the Salemba Detention Center and Pondok Bambu Detention Center.
In the four Correctional Centers, the screening results for the initial inmate placement were mostly recommended placement of prisoners in medium-security prisons. Therefore, the problems found were also the same, such as that PKs were not certified assessors and inmates were difficult to summon.
Comparison in Several Countries
The condition of prisons in Indonesia is arguably very worrying compared to several countries such as Norway, the Netherlands, Singapore, and the United States. The problems ranged from prioritizing imprisonment as the primary choice of punishment to the management of prisons which are still repressive, which increase the number of recidivism.
Indonesia has tried to overcome the problems of its prisons, such as overcrowded, overstaying, riots in prisons and detention centers, the escape of prisoners, bribes, high recidivism rates, and narcotics trafficking by making arrangements for non-prison sentences in the Criminal Code Bill (RKUHP), provisions for the rehabilitation of narcotics addicts, The grand design for handling overcrowded, Revitalizing Correctional Services, and the Crash Program, but still not showing significant results. Indonesia Correctional
System problems are almost the same as the United States (US), such as overcrowded prisons and the high recidivism rate. However, the US correctional program only focuses on two ways; the Alternatives-to-Incarceration.7 and the First Step Act (FSA).8 Generally, these two legislations are the same as the programs implemented in Indonesia to encourage inmates to behave well to be released quickly. Although the US has not succeeded in overcoming the problems of prisons, the program results are already visible. After being declared effective, the FSA legislation has produced positive results in just eight months.
The law has given judges greater discretion to deviate from certain minimum sentence limits, ended special confinement for juveniles, expanded opportunities for those in prison to improve, stay connected to their families, and make a triumphant transition return to society after the completion of their sentence. The concrete result of implementing this FSA was that more than 3,000 people had been released from prison early by meeting the qualifications for the number of “good behavior” indicators. TIn addition, the sentences for 1,700 inmates have been reduced following the development of sentences for narcotics offenders.9 Indonesia can follow the example of the US related to the speed of regulation implementation that has been made to deal with the correctional system problems.
In contrast to the US and Indonesia, which have not overcome their correctional problems, Singapore, Norway, and the Netherlands have succeeded in correctional system revitalization. The Netherlands has even rented out its prisons to other countries in need.10 The Netherlands also relaxes the Narcotics Law in terms of imprisonment, emphasizes rehabilitation rather than imprisonment, upholds the human rights of prisoners. In addition, there are various alternatives to imprisonment, such as conditional punishment, community service, electronic supervision, and fines. Meanwhile, Singapore implements Community-based sentencing consisting of Mandatory Treatment Orders (MTO), Short Detention Orders (SDO), Day Reporting Orders (DRO), Community Work Orders (COMWO), Community Service Orders (CSO), and Prisoners Empowerment Programs such as Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE), “Prison Without Guards (PWG)” and “Prison Without Walls (PWW),” and the Yellow Ribbon Project.11 Moreover, Norway focuses on the application of the Normality Principle,12 treats prisoners humanely. The main focus of the three countries that have succeeded in overcoming their correctional problems is to uphold the rights of the inmates and treat them more humanely, something which in Indonesia is still not practiced.
Conclusion
Indonesia has tried in various ways to overcome problems and challenges in correctional institutions and facilities, such as formulating non-prison punishment arrangements in the draft of the Indonesia new penal code (RKUHP), rehabilitation arrangements for narcotics users, grand design for handling overcrowded, revitalizing correctional services, crash programs, and rehabilitation programs. These efforts have not yielded optimal
7 ‘James S. Friedman, “Federal Alternatives-to-Incarceration (ATI) Programs May Be In Jeopardy.”
Https://Www.Newjerseycriminaldefenseattorney-Blog.Com/Federal-Alternatives-Incarceration- Ati-Programs-May-Jeopardy/, Accessed on 29 December 2019’.
8 ‘An Overview of the First Step Act. Https://Www.Bop.Gov/Inmates/Fsa/Overview.Jsp, Diakses Pada 4 Januari 2020;
9 ‘American Bar Association, “First Step Act Already Shows Success,” Https://Www.Americanbar.Org/
Advocacy/Governmental_legislative_work/Publications/Washingtonletter/August_2010_WL/First_
step_act_article/, Accessed on 25 December 2019’.
10 ‘Chris Ogden, The Netherlands Is So Safe That Its Prisons Are Closing, Https://Www.Ladbible.Com/
Community/Interesting-the-Netherlands-Is-so-Safe-That-Its-Prisons-Are-Closing-20180227’.
11 ‘Planning and Action to Address Unprecedented Changes. Https://Justice-Trends.Press/Planning- and-Action-to-Address-Unprecedented-Changes/, Accessed on 29 December 2019’.
12 ‘Christina Sterbenz, “Why Norway’s Prison System Is so Successful”, Http://Fixthe13th.Org/Img/
Norway%20Prison%20Rehabilitation.Pdf , Business Insider, Diakses Pada 29 Desember 2019’.
various institutions. Compared with the correctional system practiced in other countries such as Norway, implemented under the normality principle and treated prisoners humanely. Similarly, the Netherlands, which prioritizes rehabilitation programs rather than imprisonment, still upholds the human rights of prisoners then provides various alternatives to imprisonment such as conditional punishment, community services, electronic supervision, and fines. Moreover, Singapore also followed this principle by implementing community-based punishment, and the United States with the development of various alternative punishments and the First Step Act. These efforts have succeeded in leading the four countries to improve the correctional system in their countries. It is suggested that the Government of Indonesia could adopted the four countries role models in overcoming problems and facing the challenges of revitalizing the correctional institutions.
Bibliography
A Hamid Sarong & Nur A Fadhil Lubis, ‘The Child Rights In Islamic Law With A Special Focus On Aceh’ (2019) Volume 4 Petita : Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Syariah
‘American Bar Association, “First Step Act Already Shows Success,” Https://Www.
Americanbar.Org/Advocacy/Governmental_legislative_work/Publications/
Washingtonletter/August_2010_WL/First_step_act_article/, Accessed on 25 December 2019’
‘An Overview of the First Step Act. Https://Www.Bop.Gov/Inmates/Fsa/Overview.Jsp, Diakses Pada 4 Januari 2020.’
Arifin T, ‘The Guarantee of the Application of Capital Punishment on a Peacefull and Harmonious Life: Proof From Around the World’ (2019) 4 Petita : Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Syariah 56
Berman PS, The Oxford Handbook of Global Legal Pluralism (Oxford University Press 2020)
‘Chris Ogden, The Netherlands Is So Safe That Its Prisons Are Closing, Https://Www.
Ladbible.Com/Community/Interesting-the-Netherlands-Is-so-Safe-That-Its- Prisons-Are-Closing-20180227’
‘Christina Sterbenz, “Why Norway’s Prison System Is so Successful”, Http://Fixthe13th.
Org/Img/Norway%20Prison%20Rehabilitation.Pdf , Business Insider, Diakses Pada 29 Desember 2019’
Fox C, Indonesia: Twenty Years of Democracy By Jamie S. Davidson Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
‘James S. Friedman, “Federal Alternatives-to-Incarceration (ATI) Programs May Be In Jeopardy.” Https://Www.Newjerseycriminaldefenseattorney-Blog.Com/Federal- Alternatives-Incarceration-Ati-Programs-May-Jeopardy/, Accessed on 29 December 2019’
Mohd.Hisham Mohd.Kamal, ‘Human Rights Perspectives on Issues in the Implementation of Islamic Criminal Law In Malaysia’ (2019) vol 4 Petita : Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Syariah 69
Petrus Irwan Pandjaitan dan WSW, Pembaharuan Pemikiran Dr. Sahardjo Mengenai Pemasyarakatan Narapidana (Indhill Co 2008)
‘Planning and Action to Address Unprecedented Changes. Https://Justice-Trends.
Press/Planning-and-Action-to-Address-Unprecedented-Changes/, Accessed on 29
December 2019’
R. Achmad SSP dan RA, Sistem Pemasyarakatan Indonesia [Indonesian Correctional System]
(1st edn, Bina Cipta 1979)
Direktorat Jenderal Pemasyarakatan, Surat Edaran tentang Penilaian Perubahan Perilaku dan Pemenuhan Kebutuhan Bagi Klien [Circular on Behavior Change Assessment and Needs Fulfillment for Clients], SE No. PAS6-176-PK.01.04.03 Year 2019
Indonesia, Correctional Law, Law No. 12 Year 1995, LN No. 77 Year 1995, TLN No. 3614, Article 12 section (1).
Indonesia, Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia [Minister of Law and Human Rights], Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Tentang Revitalisasi Penyelenggaraan Pemasyarakatan [Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights concerning the Revital
Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia, Peraturan Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia tentang Syarat dan tata Cara Pemberian Remisi, Asimilasi, Cuti Mengunjungi Keluarga, Pembebasan Bersyarat, Cuti Menjelang Bebas, dan Cuti Bersyarat [Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights concernin
