Reformulating Indonesian Plea Bargaining: Controlling Prosecutorial Discretion and Judicial Corruption Through Judicial Oversight
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37680/almanhaj.v8i2.10512Keywords:
Plea-bargaining; Criminal Code; Criminal Procedure Code; Judicial ReviewAbstract
This study aims to examine the institutional risks arising from prosecutorial discretion in plea bargaining and to formulate a model of judicial control that safeguards judicial independence, transparency, and public accountability. Employing normative legal research, this study applies statutory, conceptual, comparative, and case approaches to analyze the allocation of authority between prosecutors and judges in plea negotiations. The findings indicate that the absence of mandatory judicial verification, substantive judicial review, and adequate transparency mechanisms creates structural opportunities for opaque negotiations, unequal bargaining power, and transactional abuse, particularly where prosecutorial discretion is insufficiently constrained. These weaknesses may shift plea bargaining from a regulated procedural mechanism to a transactional process that compromises the integrity of the criminal justice system. This study proposes a Judicially Controlled Plea Bargaining Model based on four safeguards: mandatory judicial verification, substantive judicial review, transparency requirements, and judicial authority to reject agreements that contravene legality, fairness, or public interests. The model provides a normative framework for reconciling procedural efficiency with judicial independence, institutional integrity, and an accountable criminal justice system.
References
Arky. (2024). Politik Hukum Pengaturan Plea Bargaining dalam Penegakan Hukum Perkara Pidana di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Wahana Pendidikan, 10 (November), 116–126.
Beenstock, M., Guetzkow, J., & Kamenetsky-Yadan, S. (2021). Plea Bargaining and the Miscarriage of Justice. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 37(1), 35–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-019-09441-w
Bozbayındır, A. E. (2024). The role of the judge in European plea-bargaining procedures: Three models compared. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 28(3), 203–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127231217773
Christmann, R. (2023). Plea bargaining and investigation effort: inquisitorial criminal procedure as a three-player game. European Journal of Law and Economics, 56(3), 497–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-023-09782-9
Cuellar, P., & Rentschler, L. (2026). Commitment and threats in adversarial bargaining: Insights from a plea bargaining experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 249, 107680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2026.107680
Daughety, A. F., & Reinganum, J. F. (2020). Reducing Unjust Convictions: Plea Bargaining, Trial, and Evidence Disclosure. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 36(2), 378–414. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewaa001
Faigman, D. L. (2025). Behavioral Research in the Shadow of Plea Bargaining. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 38(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70031
Febriani Wardojo, M. (2018). Legal Standing. 2(1), 418–430. https://news.detik.com/berita/d-3567290/polling-58-masyarakat-puas-kinerja-kpk,
Ginting, J. P., Nasution, F. A., Nasution, M., & Ikhsan, E. (2025). Konsep Jalur Khusus Terkait dengan Kekuasaan Kehakiman dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia. Locus : Jurnal Konsep Ilmu Hukum Republik Indonesia, 5(2), 156–163.
Gormley, J. (2022). The inefficiency of plea bargaining. Journal of Law and Society, 49(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12360
Gormley, J. (2025). The gravest inefficiency of plea bargaining and the consequences for rehabilitation and reintegration. Journal of Law and Society, 52(2), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12531
Greenberg, E. E. (2020). Unshackling Plea Bargaining from Racial Bias. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3634786
Gunowo, S. (2025). Model Plea Bargaining pada Sistem Penuntutan Indonesia dalam Perspektif Jaksa. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Sosial (Hakim), 3(4), 1372–1386. https://journal.stekom.ac.id/index.php/Hakim
Gustami, P., & Marpaung, D. S. H. (2020). Plea Bargaining in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System: An Opportunity for Efficiency or a Threat to Defendants' Human Rights. Rewang Rencang : Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis, 1(4), 1–12.
Herdino Fajar Gemilang & Rosalia Dika Agustanti. (2023). Penggunaan Plea Bargaining dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana: Menyeimbangkan Efisiensi dan Keadilan. Jurnal Interpretasi Hukum, 4(3), 422–431. https://doi.org/10.22225/juinhum.4.3.8029.422-431
Hermawati, R. (2023). Studi Perbandingan Hukum “Plea Bargaining System” di Amerika Serikat dengan “Jalur Khusus” di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis, 4(1), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.56370/jhlg.v4i1.351
Hirota, T., & Wakabayashi, K. (2026). Decision-making in Japanese plea bargaining: Impact of guilt, punishment severity, probability of conviction, and intimacy with the accused. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 97(2), 97.23046. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.97.23046
Hukum, F., & Muhammadiyah, U. (2026). Dialektika Efisiensi Peradilan dan Keadilan Substantif. 89–96.
Kemp, S., & Varona, D. (2024). Is there a penalty for going to trial in Spain? Plea bargaining and courtroom efficiency. European Journal of Criminology, 21(1), 92–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708221117514
Kim, C., & Kim, S.-H. (2021). Exoneree Compensation and Endogenous Plea Bargaining: Theory and Experiment. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 177(1), 28–55. https://doi.org/10.1628/jite-2020-0048
Kim, J.-Y. (2025). Credible plea bargaining with the Jury’s rational conviction decision. European Journal of Law and Economics, 59(3), 491–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-025-09844-0
Kurniawan, I. D., Budyatmojo, W., Maret, U. S., Artikel, I., & Bargaining, P. (2025). The Urgency of Implementing Plea Bargaining in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System. Journal of Education and Development, 13(1), 205–209.
Langbein, J. H. (2022). The Turn to Confession Bargaining in German Criminal Procedure: Causes and Comparisons with American Plea Bargaining. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 70(1), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac025
Metz, A., Monahan, J., Siebert, L., & Garrett, B. (2020). Valid or voodoo? A qualitative study of attorney perceptions of risk assessment in sentencing and plea bargaining. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(6), 2053–2068. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22404
Nangrie Sari Abuthalib, C., & Ekawaty Ismail, D. (2026). Plea Bergaining dalam Bayang-bayang Keadilan: Antara Efisiensi Penegakan Hukum dan Degradasi Nilai Kepastian Hukum. Al Zayn: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Hukum, 4(1), 1130–1146. https://doi.org/10.61104/alz.v4i1.3201
Nasoetion, D. W., & Soekorini, N. (2025). Plea Bargaining in the 2025 Draft Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code : Legal Certainty and Justice Plea Bargaining dalam RUU KUHAP Indonesia 2025 : Kepastian. 11(20), 639–648.
Nasution, M. N. F. (2025). Adaptasi Sistem Plea-Bargaining dalam Kerangka Hukum Pidana Indonesia : Tinjauan Komparatif dari Keywords Abstrak Kata Kunci. 5(3), 55–58.
Okafor, P. A. W., Warren, P. Y., & Stewart, E. A. (2022). Plea Bargaining and Trial Decisions in Context: An Examination of Disparities in Punishment. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 38(4), 432–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862221111013
Paolini, G. (2024). The adverse effect of trial duration on the use of plea bargaining and penal orders in Italy. European Journal of Law and Economics, 58(3), 551–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-024-09826-8
Paolini, G., Kantorowicz‐Reznichenko, E., & Voigt, S. (2025). Plea Bargaining Procedures Worldwide: Drivers of Introduction and Use. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 22(1), 27–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12406
Petersen, K., Redlich, A. D., & Norris, R. J. (2022). Diverging from the shadows: explaining individual deviation from plea bargaining in the “shadow of the trial.” Journal of Experimental Criminology, 18(2), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09449-4
Reumi, F., & Polontoh, H. (2024). Application of Plea Bargaining in Settlement of TPPU Cases with Criminals Originating from TIPIKOR in Efforts to Achieve Justice. 4, 13–19.
Reyna, V. F., Reed, K., Meschkow, A., Calderon, V., & Helm, R. K. (2025). Framing Biases in Plea Bargaining Decisions in those with and without Criminal Involvement: Tests of Theoretical Assumptions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 38(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70008
Riederer, A. M., & Golding, J. M. (2020). Perceptions of plea bargaining in cases of elder financial abuse. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 32(3), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/08946566.2020.1738300
Romero Seseña, P., Arantegui Arráez, L., & Tamarit Sumalla, J. M. (2024). The impact of plea bargaining on sexual offenses in Spain: An analysis of judicial sentences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 90, 102150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2023.102150
Sitohang, K. A., & Simangunsong, F. (2025). Plea Bargaining dalam Penyelesaian Tindak Pidana Korupsi pada Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial, 3(5), 303–311.
Wahyudhi, D., Rahayu, S., Sudarti, E., & Liyus, H. (2022). Prinsip Plea Bargaining dalam Penyelesaian Perkara Pidana Secara Cepat Sederhana dan Biaya Ringan dalam Pembaharuan Hukum Acara Pidana. Jurnal Sains Sosio Humaniora, 6(2), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.22437/jssh.v6i2.22592
Wilford, M. M., Wells, G. L., & Frazier, A. (2021). Plea-Bargaining Law: the Impact of Innocence, Trial Penalty, and Conviction Probability on Plea Outcomes. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(3), 554–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09564-y
Wilson, B. M. (2025). Framing Biases in Plea Bargaining Decisions: Fairness Under the Law. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 38(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70024
Wolfe, C. R. (2025). Framing Biases in Plea Bargaining Decisions: Insights From the Psychology of Medical Decision Making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 38(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70018
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jeffry Pratama, Rahadi Wasi Bintoro
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright:
- Author retains the copyright and grants the journal the right of first publication of the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book) with the acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Author is permitted and encouraged to post his/her work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
License:
-
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
-
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
