INEFFECTIVENESS
OF THE ISSUANCE OF INVESTIGATION ORDERS AFTER EXAMINING THE REPORTER IN THE
INVESTIGATION PROCESS AT THE INDONESIAN NATIONAL POLICE
Hendra Gunawan1, Ahmad Redi2
Universitas Borobudur, Jakarta, Indonesia
[email protected], [email protected]
ABSTRACT
This study examines the ineffectiveness of issuing Investigation Orders
(Surat Perintah Penyidikan or Sprindik) following complainant examinations in
Indonesia’s law enforcement process, contributing to case backlogs. Using a
normative juridical method, the research analyzes legal regulations,
administrative procedures, and relevant case examples. A statutory approach
involving legal reviews and a conceptual approach exploring legal
accountability and procedural justice principles were applied. Key findings
reveal that high investigator workloads, inadequate training, and
administrative mismanagement hinder effective Sprindik issuance. A lack of
standardized protocols for evaluating initial evidence leads to premature
suspect designations, causing judicial delays. Limited use of investigative
technologies and procedural misunderstandings further exacerbate
inefficiencies. To address these issues, the study recommends revising police
regulations to standardize evidence evaluation, expanding investigator
training, streamlining administrative processes, and adopting digital case
management systems. An oversight mechanism should be established to monitor
Sprindik issuance, ensuring greater accountability and transparency. These
reforms aim to modernize investigative procedures, reduce case backlogs, and
promote fairer, more efficient law enforcement practices. The study’s
integrated approach combines legal analysis with policy solutions, offering a
roadmap for sustainable improvements in criminal investigation management.
Keywords: administrative
procedures, case backlog, effectiveness, investigator, law enforcement,
Sprindik, training
Corresponding Author: Hendra Gunawan
E-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal
Procedure Code (KUHAP) comprehensively regulates provisions related to criminal
procedure, including the rights and obligations of investigators in conducting
this process
The main objective of
the investigation process is to identify the perpetrators of criminal acts and
to collect relevant evidence related to the crimes committed
According to the
stages in the investigation process as regulated in Article 10, paragraph (1)
of the Chief of Police Regulation Number 6 of 2019, the determination of the
suspect occurs at the fifth order, precisely point (d), after several initial
stages have been completed. Therefore, the determination of the suspect should
not happen in the SPDP stage. Additionally, Article 14, paragraph (3) of the
Chief of Police Regulation Number 6 of 2019 states that if the suspect cannot
be established, it does not need to be included. Furthermore, Article 14,
paragraph (4) stipulates that if the determination of the suspect is made more
than seven days after the issuance of the Sprindik, it must be accompanied or
attached to the previously issued SPDP. Based on these provisions, it can be
concluded that the determination of the suspect has already existed since the
issuance of the SPDP
The issuance of the
Investigation Order (Surat Perintah Penyidikan or Sprindik) done in haste or
without thorough analysis can lead to various negative impacts on the case-handling
process within the police. One of the main risks is the accumulation of cases,
which is caused by a landing for initial evaluation in setting case priorities.
This can significantly increase the workload of investigators, which in turn
will affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the investigation
The Investigation
Order (Surat Perintah Penyidikan or Sprindik) needs to be done more quickly
without thorough analysis has the potential to cause various serious problems
within the law enforcement system, particularly regarding the efficiency and
effectiveness of case handling by One of the main risks of unplanned issuance
of Sprindik is the accumulation of cases. When many Sprindik are issued without
a proper evaluation of case priorities, investigators can become overwhelmed by
handling a large number of instances simultaneously. This can lead to delays in
case resolution, causing the public seeking justice to wait longer for legal
certainty
Despite Sprindik's
critical role in the investigative process, only some legal studies have
addressed the procedural gaps and administrative challenges that undermine its
effective implementation. Existing research focuses mainly on legal theory and
the general principles of criminal investigations, leaving a gap in empirical
and policy-oriented studies aimed at practical reform. This study seeks to fill
that gap by analyzing the legal framework, procedural practices, and administrative
challenges associated with Sprindik issuance in Indonesia’s law enforcement
system.
The primary objectives
of this research are to identify the root causes of procedural delays in
Sprindik issuance, evaluate the legal and administrative challenges
investigators face, and propose policy reforms to enhance procedural
transparency and administrative efficiency. The study adopts a normative
juridical approach, supported by a statutory review of legal provisions, a
case-based analysis of documented investigations, and a conceptual exploration
of legal principles related to procedural justice. This research integrates
legal analysis with policy-oriented recommendations, contributing to developing
a more transparent and accountable investigative process. Its findings are
expected to inform legal reforms, administrative improvements, and capacity-building
efforts for law enforcement personnel, ultimately strengthening Indonesia's
criminal justice system and fostering greater public trust.
METHOD
This study employs a normative legal research
method, also known as a statutory approach, focusing on analyzing legal rules,
principles, and doctrines relevant to the issuance of Investigation Orders
(Sprindik). This approach is appropriate because the study aims to evaluate the
legal framework governing Sprindik issuance and identify procedural
inefficiencies rooted in administrative and regulatory practices. By examining
legal texts such as the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), Chief of
Police Regulations, and related laws, the research seeks to determine whether current
regulations provide adequate legal certainty and procedural guidance for law
enforcement agencies.
Additionally, a case approach is used to analyze
specific instances of Sprindik issuance that illustrate procedural challenges
and administrative errors in law enforcement practices. This method helps
connect theoretical legal concepts with real-world investigative practices,
offering insights into how legal principles are applied or overlooked in
practice. Relevant case studies and reports from police departments and
oversight bodies provide empirical support for the study’s findings.
The conceptual approach complements the analysis
by incorporating expert opinions and established legal doctrines on criminal
procedure and law enforcement accountability. This approach is justified as it
broadens the research perspective, allowing for a deeper understanding of the
theoretical and practical aspects of criminal investigations. Doctrinal sources
such as legal commentaries, academic journals, and expert analyses help
contextualize procedural gaps and propose solutions based on best practices.
By combining these methods, the study ensures a
comprehensive legal analysis that aligns with its objectives of identifying
procedural weaknesses, assessing regulatory adequacy, and proposing reforms to
improve the effectiveness of Sprindik issuance and law enforcement
accountability.
RESULT
AND DISCUSSION
Ineffectiveness of Issuing Investigative Orders
After Examination of Complainants Leading to Case Backlog
According to Article 1
number 24 of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), a report is an
action taken by an individual to inform the relevant authority regarding a
criminal event that has occurred, is occurring, or is suspected to occur, based
on rights and obligations regulated by law. Meanwhile, a complaint, as defined
in Article 1 number 25 of KUHAP, is a notification accompanied by a request
from an interested party to the relevant authority to take legal action against
individuals suspected of committing a criminal act. From this definition, it
can be concluded that a criminal event reported to the police may not
necessarily be categorized as a crime or criminal act, thus requiring further
investigation by authorized personnel. Investigation, as stated in Article 1
number 5 of KUHAP, constitutes a series of activities aimed at searching,
finding, and disclosing an event suspected as a criminal act in order to
determine whether the case can proceed to the investigation stage according to
applicable legal provisions. The investigation is carried out by an
investigator, which is a police officer authorized to perform investigations,
as stipulated in Article 1 number 4 of KUHAP.
After conducting a
case conference, the police are confident that the report or complaint received
constitutes a criminal act, and based on the evidence found in the
investigation that meets the elements of a crime, the process can be escalated
from investigation to prosecution. According to the Regulation of the Chief of
Police Number 6 of 2019 on Criminal Investigations, investigations are
conducted based on complaints or police reports, orders of duty, investigation
reports, Investigative Orders (Sprindik), and Notices of the Beginning of
Investigation (SPDP).
Sprindik is one of the
administrative, legal documents that grant the investigator the authority to
conduct an investigation. This Sprindik is a written order that has legal force
and must include, according to Article 13 paragraph (2) of the Regulation,
several pieces of information, including the basis of the investigation, the
identities of the investigative team, the case being investigated, the time the
investigation commenced, and the identity of the investigator as the issuing
authority. After the issuance of Sprindik, an SPDP is created, which must be
communicated to the Public Prosecutor, the complainant or victim, and the
reported party within a specified timeframe, as per Article 14 paragraph (1) of
the Regulation. SPDP signifies that the legal process has started
administratively within the judicial institution. In every law enforcement
process, starting from investigation to prosecution, documents with binding
legal force are included. These documents are characterized by the phrase
"Pro Justitia," which means "for justice" or "for the
law."
The issuance of an
Investigative Order (Sprindik) immediately after examining the complainant
without a thorough analysis of evidence can lead to various severe problems in
handling criminal cases. First, the lack of initial analysis of the strength of
the evidence and substance of the case causes cases that still need to meet the
requirements for initial evidence to proceed to the investigation phase. This
results in weak evidence cases entering the investigation system, unnecessarily
burdening investigators and contributing to case backlogs in the police.
According to KUHAP, investigators are required to have sufficient initial
evidence before proceeding to the investigation stage so that the legal process
is in line with the principles of justice and accountability. The lack of
initial analysis also diminishes the quality and focus of the investigation.
When cases with weak evidence are still processed, the limited resources of
investigators become divided among cases that are not genuinely worthy of prioritization.
This impacts the
efficiency of resolving other potentially more urgent or essential cases, thus
hindering the overall resolution of cases. The accumulation of cases due to the
hasty issuance of Sprindik can also lead to delays in the legal process,
ultimately impeding legal certainty for the complainant and related parties.
The issuance of Sprindik without sufficient evidence consideration also has the
potential to create injustice. In accordance with the due process principle in
KUHAP, every individual has the right to be treated according to fair legal
procedures, including the assurance that the investigation process commences
only when there are strong indications of a criminal act. Suppose investigators
issue Sprindik without adequate evidence analysis. In that case, this can lead
to erroneous suspect designations or even human rights violations, harming all
parties involved, including the police institution, in terms of accountability.
This indicates that
the police consider reports and the results of the complainant's examination
(the Minutes of Witness Examination of the Complainant) as sufficient initial
evidence. However, this viewpoint requires questioning. Reports and examinations
of the complainant are essentially unilateral statements. Therefore, the police
must seek additional information before making decisions. Thus, the police
should refrain from hastily issuing Sprindik but rather conduct an
investigation process first, except in cases of catching someone in the act. Police
officers must ensure that the reported incident is indeed a criminal act before
deciding to advance to the investigation stage. This can only be done once
sufficient evidence is obtained, not merely based on initial evidence.
Investigation is the
initial phase in the investigation process, yet not all investigations must be
preceded by an inquiry. In the Guidelines for the Implementation of KUHAP, it
is stated that investigation is a method that precedes actions such as arrests,
detentions, searches, and document examinations. In cases of catching someone
red-handed, investigation is not necessary as the act is clearly a criminal
act, such as in burglary cases. The objective of an investigation is to gather
evidence and material to disclose the criminal act and determine its
perpetrator. If sufficient evidence is found during the investigation, the
process can then continue to the investigation stage.
A change in the
Examination Minutes must accompany the change of status from witness to suspect,
and no changes can occur without a reevaluation. In the investigation phase,
summons do not include "Pro Justitia," while in the investigation
phase, summons must include this term. If investigators change the status
without appropriate procedures, this can result in annulment or invalidation of
the examination. In practice, it is often observed that after examining the
complainant, the police immediately issue Sprindik. This action poses the
potential for backlog at the police department, which, in turn, adversely
affects the effectiveness and efficiency of case handling. Consequently,
seekers of justice are forced to wait longer for legal certainty regarding
their cases. Allegations that these cases have been "put into the
freezer" often arise. However, this is only sometimes true, and such
delays are usually caused by the accumulated workload on investigators rather
than intentional negligence.
When police receive
information from informants or intelligence regarding criminal acts, they
should first investigate before issuing Sprindik. KUHAP grants every person the
right to file a report, including police, based on rights and obligations
outlined in Article 1 number 24. In practice, the Form Model A report will
result in the issuance of a Letter of Investigation Order. If the results of
the investigation indicate sufficient evidence, police may advance to the
investigation stage by issuing Sprindik. Conversely, if no elements of a crime
are found in the investigation, the police cannot continue to the investigation
phase. Problems arise regarding legal products issued after the investigation,
whether it be a Letter of Termination of Investigation or a Letter of
Termination of Investigation, or if no letters are issued at all. In practice,
police tend to be reluctant to issue SP3 (Letter of Termination of
Investigation) at the investigation stage with the reasoning that SP3 is
designated for investigations rather than for inquiries. Suppose no criminal
acts are found during the investigation. In that case, police typically issue a
Progress Report on Investigation Results (SP-2HP), even though this product is
not regulated in the prevailing legislation, possibly referring to internal
policy provisions.
The backlog of cases
in police institutions is a serious issue that significantly impacts the
effectiveness of case handling. When investigators are faced with many instances
simultaneously, they are forced to divide their attention and resources, which
in turn slows down the investigative process. This process becomes sluggish as
investigators are unable to adequately focus on each case, which leads to
investigations becoming less comprehensive and unfocused. Research by the
Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform of the Republic of Indonesia
indicates that case backlogs can diminish productivity and accuracy in handling
cases due to the slow investigation process. The delays in providing legal
certainty to the community often result in seekers of justice having to wait a
long time for information related to the status of their cases. This delay can
lead to frustration and dissatisfaction among the public, ultimately reducing
public trust in the judicial system. Studies by the United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime (UNODC) show that speed in the judicial process is a key factor
in ensuring justice and public satisfaction.
Prolonged case
backlogs can also lead to violations of human rights, particularly the right to
a speedy trial. In many cases, the sluggishness of case handling can create
situations where victims of crime or parties involved in the legal process feel
marginalized and do not receive the protection they are entitled to. A report
by Human Rights Watch highlights how the slow nature of the judicial system can
lead to injustices for victims who hope for an efficient and transparent legal
process.
The unplanned issuance
of an Investigative Order (Sprindik) can pose risks of suspect designation
without strong initial evidence. In the Indonesian legal system, the principle
of justice requires that every legal action, including the designation of a suspect,
must be based on adequate evidence. According to Article 1, paragraph (1) of
KUHAP, investigation activities must be based on the presence of sufficient
initial evidence, which usually involves at least two pieces of legally
accountable evidence. If Sprindik is issued without a thorough analysis of the
substance of the case and the available evidence, this can lead to unjust
suspect designations.
When someone is
designated as a suspect without substantial evidence, there are serious risks
to human rights as stipulated in various international instruments, such as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights. In this context, suspect identification without adequate
evidence not only harms the individual concerned but can also undermine public
trust in the judicial system. Research indicates that injustices in law
enforcement can cause psychological trauma to suspects who may be innocent and
can lead to long-lasting social stigma. The uncertainty and ambiguity caused by
suspect designations unsupported by substantial evidence can exacerbate the
situation. Suspects may face a lengthy and exhausting legal process, as well as
difficulties in proving their innocence in court. This has the potential to
create broader negative impacts, such as increasing the workload for law
enforcement and judicial systems, as well as a rise in unresolved cases. In
this regard, research by various human rights organizations reminds us that
justice should be prioritized in every legal process to ensure the protection
of individual rights. Sprindik needs a basis in careful evidence analysis,
which not only contradicts the principles of justice enshrined in KUHAP but
also poses negative impacts on the entire legal system and society as a whole.
Challenges and Efforts in
the Ineffectiveness of Issuing Investigative Order
The issuance of
Investigative Orders (Sprindik) faces significant challenges arising from a need
for more human resources, particularly concerning the number of experienced
investigators. Investigators play a key role in determining whether a police
report can proceed to the investigation stage. However, many investigators in
the field are burdened with high and complex workloads, which often hampers
their ability to conduct thorough analyses of the evidence available. This has
the potential to lead to hasty decisions in issuing Sprindik without adequately
reviewing the existing evidence and facts. According to a study conducted by
the National Legal Development Agency (BPHN), this excessive workload is often
caused by the limited number of available investigators in relation to the
influx of criminal reports.
In many cases,
investigators are forced to handle multiple instances simultaneously,
negatively impacting the quality of the investigations. A lack of time and
focus may result in superficial analyses, so investigators may not be able to
ensure that the initial evidence they possess is sufficient to support the
issuance of Sprindik. This raises the risk that cases needing more strong
evidence may still be processed, contributing to the backlog of cases in the
police department.
Insufficient training
is also a concern. Many investigators need to receive adequate education or
ongoing training to keep pace with the latest investigative techniques and
evidence analysis. A report from the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas
HAM) indicates that a lack of professional training often results in a poor
understanding of the correct procedures for issuing Sprindik. This lack of
knowledge, combined with the pressure to handle reports quickly, can lead to
premature issuance of Sprindik, which is not based on solid evidence.
The issuance of
Investigative Orders (Sprindik) and Notices of the Beginning of Investigation
(SPDP) is a crucial part of the legal process; however, the complicated
procedures involved often lead to delays. Procedures involving numerous
administrative steps and documents that must be prepared can slow down case
handling. For instance, investigators must ensure that all documents meet the
stipulations of Regulation of the Chief of Police Number 6 of 2019, which
governs criminal investigation procedures. In practice, this process often
becomes more complex when investigators do not fully understand or lack
sufficient experience with existing methods, which can result in administrative
errors or improper document completion.
Misunderstanding of
procedures can also lead to a backlog of cases in the police department.
Investigators who need to be made aware of the steps they need to take or lack
experience in preparing Sprindik and SPDP may take longer to complete
administrative tasks, leading to a pile-up of police reports that still need to
be addressed. A report by the National Legal Development Agency (BPHN) notes
that a lack of training and procedural understanding among police officers
contributes to this issue. For example, an inventor needs to fully understand
the requirements for issuing to be able to draft the document correctly, thus
delaying the legal process.
Delays in issuing
Sprindik and SPDP not only affect investigators but also create legal
uncertainty for those seeking justice. Parties involved, such as the
complainant and the reported party, often wait for legal certainty to arrive
after some time. This can lead to frustration and dissatisfaction among the
public, as well as negative perceptions of the judicial system. According to a
report by Komnas HAM, delays in the legal process may result in human rights
violations, mainly if individuals are detained without apparent legal
certainty.
Social and political
pressures from the community, media, and certain entities can significantly
influence police case handling, particularly regarding the issuance of
Investigative Orders (Sprindik). When high-profile cases arise, such as
corruption or serious crimes, there often exists pressure to expedite the
handling of such cases. This pressure may drive investigators to act swiftly,
sometimes without conducting adequate analyses of the available evidence and
information. In this context, investigators may feel compelled to issue
Sprindik quickly to demonstrate responsiveness to public expectations, even
though the existing preliminary evidence may need to be stronger.
Hasty decisions to
issue Sprindik can have serious consequences. This not only risks creating an
unfair legal process for suspects but also has the potential to violate human
rights. As stipulated in the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), suspect
designations should be based on sufficient evidence, meaning a minimum of two substantial
pieces of evidence. However, in situations where external pressure is intense,
the police may need to pay more attention to these principles of justice to
meet public demands. Research conducted by the Institute for Criminal Justice
Reform (ICJR) indicates that public pressure often causes investigators to
focus on speed rather than the quality of case handling, potentially leading to
errors in suspect designations. This situation can create an environment in
which justice needs to be more effectively upheld. Those accused may face
social stigma and reputational damage before a clear legal decision is made.
Reports from Komnas HAM suggest that hasty actions in the enforcement process
often lead to violations of human rights, including unlawful detention and
disregard for the presumption of innocence.
One of the main
challenges in issuing Investigative Orders (Sprindik) is the need for more
capacity and experience among field investigators. To address this issue,
enhancing the quality of investigator training is paramount. Comprehensive
training can equip investigators with the knowledge and skills necessary to
conduct in-depth analyses of evidence and case substance before deciding to
issue Sprindik. This will help them understand the complexities of various
cases and improve the quality of the decisions made.
Practical training
should also encompass ethical aspects of law enforcement. Investigators need to
be trained to respect principles of justice, including human rights and the
rights of suspects. According to the Witness and Victim Protection Agency
(LPSK), training in this context is crucial to prevent abuse of power and
ensure that every action taken by investigators is based on valid and
legitimate evidence. Thus, enhancing investigators' capacity through training
will not only impact the process of issuing Sprindik but also contribute
positively to the image of law enforcement agencies in the public eye. In
practice, several countries have demonstrated that investing in investigator
training can significantly improve the quality of case handling. For example,
the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT) in Indonesia has implemented
training programs for investigators involved in counterterrorism, covering the
latest investigative techniques and handling of digital evidence. The results
indicate that when provided with appropriate training, investigators can work
more efficiently and effectively, thereby reducing the risk of case backlogs.
The importance of
providing adequate resources must be considered. Investigators need access to
technology and tools that support evidence analysis, such as case management
software and information databases. With sufficient resources, investigators
can perform their work better and make more informed decisions regarding the
issuance of Sprindik.
Streamlining the
administrative procedures involved in issuing Investigative Orders (Sprindik)
is an essential step in enhancing law enforcement efficiency. Complicated and
convoluted procedures often lead to delays in legal processes, resulting in
backlogs of cases in police departments. By identifying and eliminating
unnecessary steps, law enforcement agencies can accelerate the issuance of
Sprindik, thereby reducing the workload on investigators and improving
responsiveness to reported cases. A key aspect of this streamlining is better
training regarding existing procedures. Many police officers may need to fully
understand the procedures in place, leading to errors in executing their
duties. By providing comprehensive training on administrative processes,
including how to fill out and manage documents, police can become more
efficient in issuing Sprindik.
Research indicates
that practical training can reduce the time required to complete administrative
procedures and assist officers in complying with existing regulations.
Implementing better information systems for reporting and documentation is also
critical. Information technology can play a significant role in streamlining
administrative procedures. Integrated case management systems can assist
investigators in accessing information related to existing reports and managing
evidence and documents more efficiently. With a computerized system, data
collection, processing, and reporting can be conducted more swiftly, expediting
the issuance of Sprindik and reducing the likelihood of errors that may occur
in manual processes.
The simplification of
administrative procedures involved in issuing Investigative Orders (Sprindik)
is vital in reducing delays in law enforcement and improving process
efficiency. Complicated procedures often hinder investigators from carrying out
their tasks quickly and accurately. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of
each step in the Sprindik issuance process is necessary. By identifying and
eliminating unnecessary steps, police can expedite the issuance of Sprindik,
benefiting both the complainant and the suspect. Training on existing
procedures is an essential aspect of this simplification. Many police officers
may need to fully understand all relevant procedures, which can result in
mistakes when issuing Sprindik. By providing comprehensive training,
investigators will be better equipped to follow established procedures, thereby
reducing the likelihood of errors that could have fatal consequences.
Research shows that practical
training can significantly reduce the time required to complete administrative
processes. Improved information systems are also crucial in streamlining
administrative procedures. With an integrated information management system,
data collection, processing, and reporting can be done more quickly and
accurately. This technology allows investigators to access necessary
information in real time, expediting decision-making and the issuance of
Sprindik. Additionally, this system can enhance transparency and accountability
in the issuance of legal documents, facilitating the monitoring of case
developments by relevant stakeholders.
CONCLUSION
The ineffective
issuance of Investigation Orders (Sprindik) within the Indonesian legal system
has significant implications for law enforcement efficiency and the protection
of human rights. Factors such as administrative complexities, lack of
investigator training, and limited understanding of legal procedures contribute
to investigative backlogs and delays in the judicial process. These procedural
shortcomings hinder the timely resolution of cases, causing legal uncertainty
and diminishing public trust in law enforcement institutions. Therefore,
implementing reforms such as streamlined administrative processes, enhanced
investigator training, and the adoption of integrated case management systems
is essential. These measures would improve the effectiveness of Sprindik
issuance, reduce backlogs, and ensure that investigations align with principles
of due process and accountability.
While this study has
focused on administrative and procedural reforms, future research could explore
the impact of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and
blockchain, on enhancing investigative transparency and evidence management.
Comparative studies involving law enforcement practices in other legal systems
could provide valuable insights into best practices and policy innovation.
Additionally, interdisciplinary research combining legal, technological, and
sociological perspectives could offer a more holistic approach to addressing
law enforcement challenges in the digital era.
REFERENCES
Asmoro,
D., & Riswadi, R. (2024). Legal Deliberation and Police Reform to Increase
Transparency and Accountability in Law Enforcement. Edunity Kajian Ilmu
Sosial Dan Pendidikan, 3(6), 337–344.
Butt,
S., & Lindsey, T. (2020). The Criminal Procedure Code. In Crime and
Punishment in Indonesia (pp. 44–69). Routledge.
Endarto,
B., Indriastuty, D. E., & Mardiana, F. (2025). Legal transplantation of
blue bond regulation in Indonesia. Environmental Development, 53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2024.101118
Gaffar,
S., Karsona, A. M., Pujiwati, Y., & Perwira, I. (2021). The concept of
procedural law regarding the implementation of collective agreements with
legal certainty in termination of employment in Indonesia. Heliyon, 7(4).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06690
Jones,
C. N., Rudaizky, D., Mahalingham, T., & Clarke, P. J. F. (2024).
Investigating the links between objective social media use, attentional
control, and psychological distress. Social Science and Medicine, 361.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117400
Kadir,
Z. K., & Kadir, N. K. (2024). Examining of the Concept of Standard of
Proof in the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code. International Journal of
Global Community, 7(2-July), 149–160.
Kocsis,
R. N., & Palermo, G. B. (2016). Criminal profiling as expert witness
evidence: The implications of the profiler validity research. International
Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 49, 55–65.
Nusa,
R. K. D. A. (2019). Hukum Acara Pidana (Teori, Asas Dan Perkembangannya
Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi, Gorontalo. Setara Press, h.
Ribeiro,
R. A. B., & Soeiro, C. B. B. de M. (2021). Analysing criminal profiling
validity: Underlying problems and future directions. International Journal
of Law and Psychiatry, 74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101670
Ririhena,
V. A., Pasalbessy, J. D., & Hattu, J. (2023). Kajian Yuridis Terhadap
Penerbitan Surat Perintah Penyidikan Ganda. TATOHI: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 3(1),
100–111.
Rohmad,
J. F., Sjaifurrachman, S., & Suhartono, S. (2021). Problematika Penyidikan
Tindak Pidana Dalam Penerbitan SPDP Untuk Menetapkan Seseorang Sebagai
Tersangka. ADIL: Jurnal Hukum, 12(2).
Roy,
L., Crocker, A. G., Nicholls, T. L., Latimer, E., Gozdzik, A., O’Campo, P.,
& Rae, J. (2016). Profiles of criminal justice system involvement of
mentally ill homeless adults. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,
45, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.02.013
Tiller,
R., Booth, A. M., & Cowan, E. (2022). Risk perception and risk realities
in forming legally binding agreements: The governance of plastics. Environmental
Science and Policy, 134, 67–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.04.002
Watkins,
A. M. (2024). The relationship between prior suicidality, criminal behavior,
and current household gun access among adolescents: Does race moderate the
relationship? Children and Youth Services Review, 108072.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHILDYOUTH.2024.108072
Watson,
B., Watson, A., Siskind, V., Fleiter, J., & Soole, D. (2015). Profiling
high-range speeding offenders: Investigating criminal history, personal
characteristics, traffic offences, and crash history. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 74, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.10.013
|
|
© 2024 by the authors.
It was submitted for possible open-access publication under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY SA) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). |