Melbourne Law School - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2
-
ItemCriminal Sentencing in Indonesia: Disparity, Disproportionality and Biases( 2020)This thesis assesses 1,100 Indonesian criminal justice decisions on theft and embezzlement-related offences as well as corruption in four first instance courts (2011-2015, but excluding 2013) to better understand sentencing practices in that country. Using a socio-legal methodology, it investigates the consistency and proportionality, as well as fairness (unbiased) of the sentencing practice, particular between offenders of different socio-economic backgrounds as well as the legal and extra-legal factors that contribute to sentencing outcomes. This thesis finds unwarranted disparity and disproportionality in sentencing practices in Indonesia, particularly in cases involving medium and large losses. Further, while offenders charged with corruption received overall relatively longer imprisonment sentences than offenders charged with theft and embezzlement-related offences in the same categories of loss, when the differences in the offences’ minimum and maximum penalties – as the expression of an offence’s seriousness – are put into the equation, corruptors are indeed punished disproportionally more lenient compared to thieves and fraudsters. This is because the minimum and maximum imprisonment sentences for corruption are much longer then for theft and embezzlement-related offences. I also find that many law enforcers and judges have suffer from class-bias or are involved in corruption, which leads them to be lenient in charging and sentencing corruption offenders from middle and upper socio-economic backgrounds. They did so, including, by deliberately misinterpreted provisions in the Anti-corruption Law and Supreme Court guidance. Judges’ perspective of different offences seriousness between theft-related offences and corruption (with the first-mentioned offences are generally seen as more concerning to the public as the later one) also influence the disproportionality of sentences between the two types of offences. This thesis also shows that while judges do consider legal factors in sentencing, particularly the type of offence committed and the amount of loss caused, they tend to be overly influenced by a desire to avoid appeal by prosecutors (which would increase their workload and prolong the time that offenders have to spend behind bars due to the practice common of pretrial detention and, to a lesser extent, the long appeal process). This often leads judges to follow the prosecutor’s sentencing recommendations, particularly in theft and embezzlement related offences. Worse, to avoid appeal, judges imposed more severe sentence than what is permissible on minor theft and embezzlement offenders simply because the prosecutor mischarged them by non-minor offences provisions (that demand longer prison terms). In other words, how the case is processed by the investigator and prosecutors significantly shapes sentencing outcomes. The Supreme Court’s failure to provide sufficient sentencing guidelines and, more importantly, consistent decisions, including enforcing the existing guidelines, also contributes to these problems. In summary, this thesis empirically confirms the public perception of class-bias and corruption in the Indonesian criminal justice and, further, illustrates how poor law enforcement, case management and weaknesses in the Supreme Court distort sentencing.
-
ItemReforming Group Legal Personhood in Indonesian Land Law: Towards Equitable Land Rights for Traditional Customary Communities( 2020)An adequate definition of group legal personhood (that is, a rights and obligation-holding personality) in Indonesian law is essential if there is to be equal land rights distribution. The present unclear definition of groups in the law as legal persons, coupled with uncoordinated and fragmented government policies, means that land-related decision-making usually operates only for the benefit of persons seen by the law as an ideal legal subject. In this thesis, I focus on 'person' in the sense of a group of individuals that associate as a single unified entity. In Indonesia and in general legal doctrine, the lack of clarity in the definition of ‘legal person’ has resulted in traditional customary (adat) groups and their customary land title being excluded and this vulnerable to marginalisation and land expropriation. This has given rise to much debate about which groups can be said to have a legal personality as bearers of rights and obligation, and why. The thesis aims: to understand the core concept of a group as a legal or juridical person; investigate how decisions on land rights are made by the Indonesian government; how traditional customary (adat) groups themselves choose to be recognised; and how such distributions could be reformed to better protect adat groups. Two case studies on specific policies related to the asserting of the customary communal land title (hak ulayat) are reviewed, covering the background of decisions on land rights entitlement (socio-legal and political), the process for distribution, and the consequences of the policies chosen. The primary contentions of this thesis are as follows: first, the current practice of legal and political recognition of adat groups requires ‘regional regulations’ (that is, local by-laws) to be passed to make operational a form of legal personhood and operational land title specific to particular local adat groups and ulayat land. These measures can empower adat groups to function before the law. Second, Indonesian law relating to group personhood needs to clearly define which category of legal subject adat groups fall into. The current approach of the government (simplification and homogenisation) presents a fundamental obstacle to adat groups, who seek a legal form that best represents their values and systems, and accurately reflects their group identities. Third, legal exercises by government bodies to translate traditional customary land rights into operational land titles and forest rights have played an important role in creating a legal breakthrough. This has provided a (potential) answer to decades of deadlock in seeking to make ulayat (communal land and forest) rights into legally cognisable and registrable land rights. This research concludes that the legal definition of group personhood creates difficulties facing adat groups in asserting their personhood, which becomes a major obstacle to the capacity of adat groups to assert their rights to their traditional land, but it also concludes that it is not impossible for adat groups to navigate these challenges.