DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.55.1.2026.171-196

WHEN RESTORATIVE JUSTICE BECOMES CASE NEGOTIATION: LEGAL VALIDITY AND NORMATIVE DISTORTION IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

*Andika Wahyudi Gani  -  Faculty of Social Sciences and Law, Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia
Nurul Maghfirah Surianto  -  Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Negeri Makassar, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright (c) 2026 Masalah-Masalah Hukum under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Restorative justice is normatively designed to repair harm and restore social relations among offenders, victims, and the community. However, when incorporated into formal criminal justice institutions, it may shift from a relational and reparative process into a negotiation-oriented mechanism for case resolution, particularly when institutional procedures prioritize settlement, compensation, forgiveness, or case termination over substantive restoration. This article examines that shift in the Indonesian criminal justice system, where restorative justice has been institutionalized through police, prosecutorial, and judicial regulations and further grounded in Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code. Using doctrinal legal research through conceptual and statutory approaches, this article applies the Three-Pillar Institutional Legitimacy Framework, consisting of legal validity (P1), normative fidelity (P2), and public rational justification (P3). The analysis shows that Law Number 20 of 2025 strengthens the legal validity of restorative justice by regulating restorative mechanisms in Articles 79–88 and positioning prior sectoral regulations within a higher statutory framework through Articles 361 and 367. Nevertheless, legal validity alone does not guarantee substantive legitimacy. Restorative justice may still undergo normative distortion when institutional actors treat agreement, forgiveness, compensation, or procedural closure as sufficient indicators of restoration without examining victim recovery, offender accountability, voluntary participation, community involvement, guarantees of non-repetition, and the public interest. In such circumstances, public rational justification may appear coherent at the surface level while lacking normative depth. This configuration constitutes pseudo-ethical legitimacy: institutional action remains legally valid but loses the substantive restorative foundation that justifies restorative justice. This article argues that strengthening restorative justice in Indonesia requires legal harmonization and sustained institutional commitment to preserving it as a mechanism for repairing harm, restoring social relations, and preventing its reduction into a procedural tool for case disposal.

Fulltext View|Download Email colleagues
Keywords: Restorative Justice; Pseudo-Ethical Legitimacy; Institutional Legitimacy; Normative Fidelity; Legal Validity

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Articles
Language : EN
Most cited articles
MIGRASI PENDUDUK DAN IMPLIKASINYA TERHADAP HANKAM DI WILAYAH PERBATASAN KALBAR-SERAWAK, MALAYSIA Eksistensi Prinsip Responsibility to Protect Dalam Hukum Internasional MARRIAGE LAW AND DIVORCE BASED ON ADAT LAW IN BALI MEDIASI PENAL SEBAGAI ALTERNATIF PENYELESAIAN PERKARA PENGGELAPAN BENDA JAMINAN FIDUSIA PRINSIP MOST FAVOURED NATIONS DAN PENGECUALIANNYA DALAM WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO) More cited articles
  1. Agné, H. (2018). Legitimacy in Global Governance Research (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198826873.003.0002
  2. Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1.2.177
  3. Ashworth, A. (2002). Responsibilities, Rights and Restorative Justice. British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 578–595. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/42.3.578
  4. Bazemore, G. (2001). Young People, Trouble, and Crime. Youth & Society, 33(2), 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X01033002004
  5. Beetham, D. (1991). The Legitimation of Power. Macmillan Education UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21599-7
  6. Benuf, K., & Azhar, M. (2020). Metodologi Penelitian Hukum sebagai Instrumen Mengurai Permasalahan Hukum Kontemporer. Gema Keadilan, 7(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.14710/gk.2020.7504
  7. Beven, J. P., Hall, G., Froyland, I., Steels, B., & Goulding, D. (2005). Restoration or Renovation? Evaluating Restorative Justice Outcomes. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 12(1), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2005.12.1.194
  8. Bhat, P. I. (2020). Idea and Methods of Legal Research. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199493098.001.0001
  9. Bibas, S. (2011). Regulating the Plea-Bargaining Market: From Caveat Emptor to Consumer Protection. California Law Review, 99(4), 1117–1146. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38811K
  10. Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative Justice & Responsive Regulation. Oxford University Press
  11. Breakey, H. (2021). Harnessing Multidimensional Legitimacy for Codes of Ethics: A Staged Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 170(2), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04270-0
  12. Brinkmann, M. (2025). Degrees of Legitimacy. Res Publica, 31(1), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-024-09675-x
  13. Buchanan, A. (2025). Normative and Sociological Legitimacy. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Obligation (pp. 25–32). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/9780191968488.003.0003
  14. Bulatović, A., & Fatić, A. (2024). The Vagaries of Restorative Justice: Borders Between Restorative Justice and Justice as Punishment. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference “Life in Prison: Criminological, Penological, Psychological, Sociological, Legal, Security, and Medical Issues,” 85–91. https://doi.org/10.47152/PrisonLIFE2024.21
  15. Dyzenhaus, D. (1994). The Legitimacy of Law: A Response to Critics. Ratio Juris, 7(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.1994.tb00168.x
  16. Dyzenhaus, D. (2001). Hobbes and the Legitimacy of Law. Law and Philosophy, 20(5), 461–498. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017515528495
  17. Dzur, A. W., & Olson, S. M. (2004). The Value of Community Participation in Restorative Justice. Journal of Social Philosophy, 35(1), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2004.00218.x
  18. Ehrenberg, K. M. (2020). The Institutionality of Legal Validity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 100(2), 277–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12536
  19. Gordon Finlayson, J. (2021). No proviso: Habermas on Rawls, Religion and Public Reason. European Journal of Political Theory, 20(3), 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885118804797
  20. Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation Crisis. Beacon Press
  21. Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. MIT Press
  22. Kohler-Hausmann, I. (2014). Managerial Justice and Mass Misdemeanors. Stanford Law Review, 66(3), 611–694. https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/managerial-justice-and-mass-misdemeanors/
  23. Kohler-Hausmann, I. (2019). Managerial Justice. In Misdemeanorland (pp. 60–98). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691196114.003.0003
  24. Malcai, O., & Levine-Schnur, R. (2014). Which Came First, the Procedure or the Substance? Justificational Priority and the Substance-Procedure Distinction. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 34(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqt032
  25. Marzuki, P. M. (2022). The Essence of Legal Research is to Resolve Legal Problems. Yuridika, 37(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v37i1.34597
  26. McEvoy, K. (2002). Restorative Justice and the Critique of Informalism in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 534–562. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/42.3.534
  27. Miceli, T. J. (2019). Plea Bargaining: Negotiated Justice. In The Paradox of Punishment (pp. 97–117). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31695-2_5
  28. Noor, S., Banapon, K. I., & Levis, T. K. (2025). Distorted Practice of Restorative Justice in the Enforcement of Criminal Law in Indonesia. Peradaban Hukum Nusantara, 2(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.62193/ze7dhp98
  29. Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press
  30. Raz, J. (2019). The Law’s Own Virtue. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 39(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqy041
  31. Reus-Smit, C. (2007). International Crises of Legitimacy. International Politics, 44(2–3), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800182
  32. Rossner, M., & Taylor, H. (2024). The Transformative Potential of Restorative Justice: What the Mainstream Can Learn from the Margins. Annual Review of Criminology, 7(1), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030421-040921
  33. Schiff, M., & Green, S. T. (2025). The Mischaracterization of Restorative Justice: Claims, Limits, and Potential. The British Journal of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azaf077
  34. Suzuki, M. (2023). Revisiting the Real Story of Restorative Justice in the Criminal Justice System: 20 Years On. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 65(2), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2022-0061
  35. Suzuki, M., & Wood, W. R. (2017). Co-option, Coercion and Compromise: Challenges of Restorative Justice in Victoria, Australia. Contemporary Justice Review, 20(2), 274–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2017.1311194
  36. Tiller, E., & Cross, F. B. (2005). What is Legal Doctrine (Public Law and Legal Theory Papers, Issue 41) [Working Paper]. Bepress Legal Repository. https://law.bepress.com/nwwps-plltp/art41
  37. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological Perspectives on Legitimacy and Legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038
  38. Waldron, J. (2019). Rule by Law: A Much Maligned Preposition (NYU School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3378167
  39. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press
  40. Wiesner, C., & Harfst, P. (2019). Legitimität Und Legitimation. In C. Wiesner & P. Harfst (Eds), Legitimität und Legitimation: Vergleichende Perspektiven (pp. 373–383). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26558-8_13
  41. Zehr, H. (2002). The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Good Books

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2026-07-14 14:52:34

No citation recorded.