Degrading Penal Populism Through Alternative Sanctions in The Indonesian Penal Code
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59525/rechtsvinding.1732Keywords:
Penal Populism, Alternative Sanctions, New Penal Code, Purposes of Punishment, Sentencing GuidelinesAbstract
The enactment of the Penal Code (Law No. 1/2023) marks a historic shift in national penal policy, revealing a complex dualism between retributive penal populism and modern sentencing moderation. This paper aims to analyze the structure of penal policy within the Penal Code to examine how alternative sanctions are normatively designed to control, limit, and degrade the expansive destructive power of penal populism. Employing a doctrinal legal research method with legislative, conceptual, and legal-historical approaches, this study examines how the New Penal Code exhibits a “Janus-faced penal policy.” On one hand, this codification accommodates public punitive sentiment through the retention of the death penalty, the expansion of overcriminalization in public spaces, and intervention in the private sphere. On the other hand, however, it institutionalizes balancing mechanisms through the incorporation of new alternative sanctions, namely probation and community service. Guided by the “Principle of Balance” enshrined in the sentencing guidelines (Articles 51–54), these alternative sanctions function as a safety valve. This study concludes that the convergence of these two opposing paradigms is not merely a forced pragmatic political compromise, but rather a systemic normative design intended to curb the public’s punitive zeal while simultaneously preventing the judicial system from collapsing due to prison overcrowding. The success of this de-escalation of penal populism ultimately rests on the standardization of judicial risk assessment tools and a progressive shift in the mindset of law enforcement officials.
References
Amiruddin, and Zainal Asikin. 2014. Pengantar Metode Penelitian Hukum. 1st ed. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Anggara, Erasmus A.T Napitupulu, Genoveva Alicia K.S. Maya, Iftitahsari, Maidina Rahmawati, and Sustira Dirga. 2019. Kebangkitan Penal Populism Di Indonesia: Catatan Situasi Refiormasi Kebijakan Pidana Di Indonesia Tahun 2018. Jakarta: Institute for Criminal Justice Reform.
Ashworth, Andrew J. 1992. “Sentencing Reform Structures.” Crime and Justice 16(181–241).
Assegaf, Rifqi S. 2016. “Analisis Dan Rekomendasi Terkait Pengaturan Pedoman Pemidanaan Dalam RKUHP.” LeIP.
Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Republik Indonesia. 2015. “Naskah Akademik Rancangan Undang-Undang Tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP).”
Barker, Vanessa. 2012. “Theoretical Criminology Penal Regime Penal Regime.” Theoretical Criminology 12(1): 5–25. doi:10.1177/1362480612468935.
Batchelor, Carolyn Hoyle and Diana. 2021. Investigating Attitudes to the Death Penalty in Indonesia Part II Public Opinion : No Barrier to Abolition. Newman Street, London: The Death Penalty Project.
Copson, Lynne. 2014. “Penal Populism and the Problem of Mass Incarceration : The Promise of Utopian Thinking.” The Good Society 23(1): 55–72.
Dagan, Netanel. 2020. “The Janus Face of Imprisonment : Contrasting Judicial Conceptions of Imprisonment Purposes in the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of the United States.” Criminology & Criminal Justice: 1–17. doi:10.1177/1748895820911967.
DauryCesarFabriz1, Gabriel Silveira de Queiro´sCampos and. 2024. “Is ‘“ Penal Populism ”’ Really Populist ? Evaluating Penal Legislation In.” Sage Open 14(4): 1–15. doi:10.1177/21582440241297444.
Dean, Malcolm. 2012. “The Origins of Penal Populism.” Criminal Justice Matters 87(October 2014). doi:10.1080/09627251.2012.671022.
Dzur, Albert W. 2010. “The Myth of Penal Populism: Democracy, Citizen Participation, and American Hyperincarceration.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 24(4): 354–79.
Eddy O.S. Hiariej dan Topo Santoso. 2025. Anotasi KUHP Nasional. Depok: Rajawali Pers.
Fuady, Munir. 2018. Metode Riset Hukum Pendekatan Teori Dan Konsep. 1st ed. Depok: Rajawali Pers.
Gelb, Arie Freiberg and Karen. 2008. “Penal Populism, Sentencing Councils and Sentencing Policy.” In Penal Populism, Sentencing Councils and Sentencing Policy, ed. Arie Freiberg and Karen Gelb. United Kingdom: Willan Publishing, 1–14.
Green, David A. 2014. “Penal Populism and the Folly of ‘ Doing Good by Stealth .’” The Good Society 23(1): 73–86.
Hoelter, Herbert J. 2009. “Sentencing Alternatives—Back to the Future.” In Alternative Sanctions, Diversion, and Other Models, University of California Press on behalf of the Vera Institute of Justice.
Indonesian Corruption Watch. 2022. Siaran Pers Pasal Korupsi Dalam KUHP: Menjauhkan Efek Jera Dan Menguntungkan Koruptor. Jakarta.
Kahan, Dan M. 1996. “What Do Alternative Sanctions Mean?” The University of Chicago Law Review 63(2): 591–653.
Lacey, Nicola. 2019. “Populism and the Rule of Law.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 15. doi:DOI:10.1146/ANNUREV-LAWSOCSCI-101518-042919.
Lewis, Christoper. 2022. “Risk-Based Sentencing and The Principles of Punishment.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 112(2).
Mahkamah Konstitusi. 2026. “Mahasiswa Hukum Uji Pasal Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dalam KUHP.” Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia.
Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia. 2006. “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 013-022/PUU-IV/2006.”
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. 2016. Penelitian Hukum. Edisi Revi. Jakarta: Kencana.
Metz, Anne. 2020. “A Qualitative Perspective on Alternative Sentencing Practices in Virginia.” Federal Sentencing Reporter: State Prosecutors: Their Impact on Mass Incarceration and Criminal Justice Reform 32(4).
Monahan, John. 2017. Risk Assessment in Sentencing Academy for Justice, a Report on Scholarship and Criminal Justice Reform. Virginia.
Newton, Michael. 2010. Criminal Justice: Prison and The Penal System. New York: Chelsea House Publisher.
Pratt, John. 2007. Penal Populism: Key Ideas in Criminology Series. London: Routledge.
Republik Indonesia. 2023. “Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 Tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana.”
Republik Indonesia. 2026. “Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2026 Tentang Penyesuaian Pidana.”
Roberts, Julian V., Loretta J. Stalans, David Indermaur, and Mike Hough. 2003. Penal Populism and Public Opinion: Lessons Form Five Countries. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shames, Ram Subramanian and Alison. 204AD. “Sentencing and Prison Practices in Germany and the Netherlands: Implications for the United States (Vera Institute of Justice, October 2013).” Federal Sentencing Reporter: Ideas from Abroad and Their Implementation at Home (October 2014) 27(1): 33–45.
Shammas, Victor L. 2016. “Who ’ s Afraid of Penal Populism ? Technocracy and ‘ the People ’ in the Sociology of Punishment.” Contemporary Justice Review 2580(May). doi:10.1080/10282580.2016.1185946.
Simbolon, Feliks Amos Pangihutan. 2025. “Problematika Kriminalisasi Kohabitasi Dalam KUHP Baru.” Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Pengayoman Universitas Katolik Parahyangan.
Turner, Liz. 2014. “Penal Populism , Deliberative Methods , and the Production of ‘ Public Opinion ’ on Crime and Punishment.” The Good Society 23(1): 87–102.
Warren, Roger K. 2015. “Evidence-Based Sentencing in the State Courts.” Federal Sentencing Reporter: The Risk Assessment Era: An Overdue Debate 27(4): 248–51.
Yudiani, Komang, Made Sugi Hartono, and I Nengah Suastika. 2026. “Kriminalisasi Kohabitasi : Tantangan Penegakan Hukum Dalam Keberagaman Budaya Indonesia.” Perspektif Administrasi Publik dan hukum 3(1).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ahwan Ahwan, Ika Yuliana Susilawati
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
