Abstract:This study looks at the fairness of restorative justice, the goal of punishment, and the need of legal certainty. According to the study's findings, restorative justice is still only being applied theoretically. In this instance, it emphasizes that the formalistic, long-established ideas of justice that have arisen in society and are applied in Indonesian customary law assemblies serve as the foundation for the genuine aim of sentencing. In contrast, the notions of individual deterrence and general deterrence call for actions to be absolute in order to produce a deterrent impact. Afterward, the idea of reform or rehabilitation was further developed. The use of restorative justice emphasizes the recovery of victims' material losses as a result of the perpetrators' unlawful acts, both physically and psychologically. This is done through a consensus-building process involving the perpetrator, the victim, the perpetrator's family, and the victim's family, as well as, if necessary, the community and the appropriate authorities. With relation to legal norms and values, this research methodology is normative juridical along with theories, legal doctrine, jurisprudence, applicable rules and regulations, as well as publications pertinent to the research topic. According to the study's findings, restorative justice is a noble form of justice when instances of illegal behavior have happened. Therefore, repair or restoration is crucial if the victim is to be rehabilitated or healed from the suffering he has endured on a material, physical, or psychic level. To be clear, restorative justice does not apply to all crimes; rather, it only does so in circumstances involving crimes against children, minor offenses, women in conflict with the law, and drug-related offenses. In order to provide clarity, there should be a firmness if the offender does not want to make restitution even though it is deemed capable of doing so in terms of material capabilities. There also needs to be concrete sanctions so that restorative justice is not only limited to other options; the legal framework for it should be expanded to the Constitution.

Myths of restorative features in the Japanese justice system and society: the role of apology, compensation and confession, and application of reintegrative shaming

On the Basic Philosophy of Criminal Reconciliation——Comparative Study between Zhejiang "Fengqiao Experience" and U.S. VOR Model

The rise of shaming paternalism in Japan: recent tendencies in the Japanese criminal justice system

Idealizing the other? Western images of the Japanese Criminal Justice System

Recent Trends in the Execution of Sentences and the Involvement of Victims in Japan

Crime and criminal justice in modern Japan: From re-integrative shaming to popular punitivism

Restorative Justice (XIU-FU-SHI-SI-FA) in Taiwan: Traditional Practices and Modern Developments

How Does Culture Shape Conceptions of Forgiveness? Evidence From Japan and the United States

The politics of increasing punitiveness and the rising populism in Japanese criminal justice policy

Seeking justice rooted in truth, reconciliation and forgiveness

Hostage Justice and Wrongful Convictions in Japan

Lay Participation in Japanese Criminal Justice: Prosecution Review Commissions, the Lay-Judge System, and Penal Institution Visiting Committees

The Past, Present, and Future of Restorative Justice in the Chinese Mainland: A Systematic Review of Chinese Literature

The Social Psychology of Justice Repair

Japanese Atmospheres of Criminal Justice

From parallel to intersecting narratives in cases of sexual assault

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE, THE INTENT OF PUNISHMENT, AND LEGAL CLARITY IN INDONESIA

Has Probation Any Impact in Terms of Reparation to Victims and Communities? Complicating a Simple Question

Applications of Legal Psychology in Japan: Current Practice, Research Knowledge, and Future Directions

A place for public concerns in parole decision making in Japan