<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.2 20190208//EN"
                  "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="1.2" article-type="other">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id></journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
</journal-title-group>
<issn></issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name></publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<permissions>
</permissions>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="introduction">
  <title>INTRODUCTION</title>
  <p>Corruption has be one of problem main problem faced by almost all
  countries in the world, including Indonesia. The phenomenon This No
  only damage integrity system government , but also give rise to wide
  impact​ to development economy , stability politics and beliefs public
  to state institutions . Transparency International noted that
  Indonesia is still is at a worrying level in Index Perception
  Corruption , shows the need steps significant For overcome problem
  this . [1]</p>
  <p>In the Indonesian context , corruption often categorized​ as crime
  outside extraordinary crime, considering its very detrimental impact
  interest public and development national . However , the irony happen
  when perpetrator act criminal corruption often receive​ punishment that
  is classified as light from institution justice . Conditions This
  bring up criticism from various circles , including academic ,
  practitioner law and society civil , who questioned the state's
  commitment to eradicate corruption . According to data from Commission
  Eradication Corruption (KPK), partly big verdict to perpetrator
  corruption only range between 1 to 4 years prison , far away from
  expectation public For more punishment​ heavy and gives effect
  deterrent . [2]</p>
  <p>Study previous has Lots discuss issue punishment light to
  perpetrator corruption . A study by Nurhayati revealed that factors
  like intervention politics , weakness enforcement law and culture
  patronage become reason main lightness judge's verdict . [3] On the
  other hand , research by Kartono highlights existence mismatch between
  decision court with principle justice substantive , which should be
  become base main in to drop punishment
  .<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1">1</xref> Temporary that , study
  international by Rose-Ackerman and Palifka confirms that punishment
  that is not comparable with level crime corruption contribute to the
  low trust public to system justice . [4]</p>
  <p>From the perspective theory justice , problems punishment light to
  perpetrator corruption can analyzed through various approaches , such
  as theory justice distributive , retributive , and restorative . [5]
  Theory of justice distributive emphasize importance allocation source
  fair power​ in society , including giving proportional punishment​ to
  perpetrator crime . [6] Temporary that , theory justice retributive
  focus on punishment perpetrator as form revenge on action those who
  violate legal and moral norms . [7] On the other hand , the theory
  justice restorative put forward recovery connection between
  perpetrators , victims and communities affected by the crime crime .
  Third approach This give framework conceptual that can used For
  analyze inequality in the fall punishment to perpetrator corruption .
  [8]</p>
  <p>One of phenomenon latest relevant​ For discussed is cases corruption
  big involving​ figure public or official high , which often gets
  verdict light . [9] For example , in case corruption involving​ a ex-
  ministers in Indonesia in 2023 , the court decide punishment prison
  for two years , although state losses caused reach billions of rupiah.
  Verdict This trigger reaction hard from society , which considers
  decision the No reflects a sense of justice . At the level
  international , report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and
  Crime (UNODC) highlights that lightness punishment to perpetrator
  corruption in many countries, including Indonesia, reflects weakness
  commitment political in eradicate corruption . [10]</p>
  <p>Issue this can also seen from corner view normative in study law .
  Research law normative , also known as as study doctrinal or
  bibliography , focusing on analysis regulation legislation ,
  principles law , and doctrine relevant law . In the context of study
  this , approach normative can used For evaluate to what extent are
  regulations in Indonesia, such as Constitution Number 31 of 1999
  concerning Eradication Action Criminal Corruption , has implemented
  with consistent in the judicial process . In addition , research this
  will also to study decisions court For identify possible patterns​
  leading to lightness verdict to perpetrator corruption . [11]</p>
  <p>Focus study This is For to study phenomenon punishment light to
  perpetrator corruption from perspective theory justice , with use
  approach normative . Formulation the problem that will discussed
  includes : factors that influence lightness the punishment imposed to
  perpetrator corruption in Indonesia; implementation theory justice in
  the fall punishment to perpetrator corruption ?; implications from
  punishment light to effectiveness eradication corruption in Indonesia?
  For answer questions said , research This will refers to various
  source primary and secondary law . Source primary law includes law ,
  decision courts , and conventions relevant international treaties ,
  such as the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC).
  While that , source law secondary covering literature academic ,
  report institution international , and statistical data describing
  trend punishment in case corruption . Analysis to sources This will
  give better understanding​ deep about root problems and solutions that
  can be proposed . [12]</p>
  <p>Important For noted that phenomenon punishment light to perpetrator
  corruption No only impact on trust public to system justice , but also
  in efforts eradication corruption in a way overall . Punishment is not
  worth it with level crime tend reduce effect deterrent effect and even
  can push perpetrator potential For do action similar . In the context
  of this , theory justice retributive give strong argument​ that
  perpetrator corruption must accept appropriate punishment​ with his
  actions For ensure there is a sense of justice in society . [13] Study
  This aiming For give contribution for development knowledge law , in
  particular in understand and overcome problem punishment light to
  perpetrator corruption . With use approach normative and perspective
  theory justice , expected study This can give constructive
  recommendations​ for maker policy , institution justice , and society
  civil in strengthen effort eradication corruption in Indonesia. As
  stated by Transparency International, eradicating corruption No only
  about punish the perpetrator , but also creates fair and transparent
  system​ For prevent crime similar in the future .</p>
</sec>
<sec id="method">
  <title>METHOD</title>
  <p>Study This use method study law normative or library research with
  a purpose For analyze phenomenon law based on sources bibliography .
  [14] The approach used covers approach regulation legislation ,
  approach comparison , and approach conceptual . Approach regulation
  legislation done with to study relevant laws , such as Constitution
  Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication Action Criminal Corruption ,
  as well as regulation international such as the United Nations
  Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). [15] Approach comparison used
  For compare practice enforcement law to case corruption in Indonesia
  with other countries that have system law similar . While that ,
  approach conceptual aiming For understand theory relevant justice ,
  such as theory justice retributive , distributive , and restorative .
  Data analysis was carried out in a way descriptive-prescriptive ,
  namely with describe fact existing laws and provide​ recommendation For
  repair system law based on findings research . [16]</p>
</sec>
<sec id="results">
  <title>RESULTS</title>
</sec>
<sec id="factor-affecting-lightness-the-sentence-imposed-to-perpetrator-corruption-in-indonesia">
  <title>Factor affecting Lightness The Sentence Imposed to Perpetrator
  Corruption in Indonesia</title>
  <p>There is a number of factors that influence lightness the
  punishment imposed to perpetrator corruption in Indonesia, which can
  grouped to in aspect structural , institutional , and cultural . In
  structural , weak enforcement law become factor main . This is
  indicated by the presence of imbalance between existing regulations​
  with its implementation in the field . Although Constitution Number 31
  of 1999 concerning Eradication Action Criminal Corruption in a way
  explicit mention importance punishment heavy For give effect deterrent
  , empirical data show that majority the verdict handed down revolves
  around the minimum penalty , namely between One until four year prison
  (KPK, 2023). Phenomenon This indicates existence gap between
  regulation normative with its implementation . In a studies
  comprehensive by Transparency International (2023), Indonesia was
  declared own regulation sufficient anti- corruption good , but its
  implementation often hit obstacles​​ technical and political . In the
  context of This , Lemieux stressed that weakness enforcement law No
  only create gap law , but also provides room for perpetrator
  corruption For utilise system vulnerable justice​ to manipulation .
  [17]</p>
  <p>Imbalance between threat criminal maximum set​ in Constitution with
  a decision handed down by a judge in court be one of problem main in
  effort eradication corruption in Indonesia. Data released by the
  Commission Eradication Corruption show that more from 70% of decisions
  court to case corruption in five years final tend to drop punishment
  at the minimum limit set law . This is cause criticism from society
  and institutions monitor corruption international . As example ,
  report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC, 2023)
  states that verdict light to perpetrator corruption reduce trust
  public to system justice and weaken effect the deterrent that should
  be appear from punishment the .</p>
  <p>From the aspect institutional , influence power political to
  institution justice become problem main . A study by Nurhayati (2021)
  revealed that Judicial independence is often threatened by pressure
  politics and economics , especially in cases involving​ official height
  of country or figure influential . In many case , intervention This No
  only affect the trial process , but also the outcome decision , so
  that perpetrator corruption often get​ far away punishment more light
  than expected .​ As For example , research by Setiawan shows that in
  cases involving​ figure political influential , intervention political
  often seen​ in form postponement of the trial process or decisions that
  are of a nature compromise . This factor is also supported by the
  findings from the Global Integrity Report, which notes that influence
  political to system justice be one of obstacle main in eradication
  corruption in developing countries , including Indonesia. In addition
  to intervention politics , weakness internal supervision of judges and
  officials enforcer law other participate contribute to emergence
  verdict that is not reflects a sense of justice . In context This ,
  Purnomo emphasized the importance of institutional reform that
  includes strengthening mechanism internal and external supervision to
  institution justice . As example , mechanism supervision by the
  Commission Judicial often limited to functions​ administrative and less
  touch aspect substantive in supervision to judge's decision . Research
  by Tanaka in context comparison international show that countries with
  mechanism strong supervision​ to judiciary , such as South Korea and
  Singapore, has level more corruption​ low compared to with countries
  under supervision nature weak .</p>
  <p>In general cultural , culture patronage and tolerance to corruption
  also plays a role role significant in influence lightness the sentence
  imposed to perpetrator corruption . A society that is accustomed to
  with practice corruption often shows​ attitude apathetic to verdict
  light given​ to perpetrator . Kartono emphasized that culture This
  exacerbated by the low literacy law in society , which makes public
  not enough critical to weakness in system justice . In a study by
  Zainuddin it was found that more of the 60% of respondents in
  Indonesia believe that corruption is the hard thing avoided ,
  especially in context bureaucracy . Attitude apathetic This reinforced
  by the low transparency in the judicial process , which is often not
  allow public For supervise the way trial .</p>
  <p>In context this , theory justice distributive highlight importance
  fair distribution​ in system law , including in giving appropriate
  punishment .​ Rawls in theory justice distributive emphasize that
  justice must realized through equal distribution​ to rights and
  obligations in society . However , the practice in the field show
  existence striking inequality , where the perpetrators from elite
  circles often get​ more treatment​ light compared to with perpetrator
  from circles below . As example , in case corruption involving​
  official high , often found​ that perpetrator only sentenced punishment
  test or punishment very light prison . This is in stark contrast with
  case corruption small involving​ public usual , where the perpetrator
  often punished​ with more prison​ heavy . Harding shows that phenomenon
  This No only occurs in Indonesia, but also in other countries that
  have level inequality high social and economic .​</p>
  <p>Aspect culture also plays a role role in strengthen inequality this
  . Culture The strong patronage in Indonesia creates network protection
  that allows perpetrator corruption from elite circles to escape from
  punishment heavy . In the context of This , Heidenheimer emphasized
  that culture patronage often become​ barrier main in effort eradication
  corruption , because create dependence between perpetrator corruption
  and networks its supporters . [18] In addition , tolerance public to
  corruption is also exacerbated by low awareness will impact negative
  from practice said . As For example , research by Transparency
  International shows that that more of the 40% of Indonesian people
  still consider corruption as practices that can accepted in situation
  certain , especially If related with fulfillment need personal or
  family . [1]</p>
  <p>In terms of this , is required a comprehensive approach For
  overcome factors that influence lightness punishment to perpetrator
  corruption . Structural reforms , such as strengthening mechanism
  enforcement law and revision the law that regulates eradication
  corruption , must become priority main . In addition , institutional
  reforms that include improvement independence greater justice and
  oversight​ strict to apparatus enforcer law is also very important .
  From the side cultural , educational and anti -corruption campaigns
  must improved For change culture tolerance to corruption and increase
  literacy law in society . With integrated approach​ this , it is
  expected system the judiciary in Indonesia can more reflect principles
  true justice and provide​ effect more deterrent​ big to perpetrator
  corruption . [8]</p>
</sec>
<sec id="application-of-the-theory-of-justice-in-sentencing-punishment-to-perpetrator-corruption">
  <title>Application of the Theory of Justice in Sentencing Punishment
  To Perpetrator Corruption</title>
  <p>Analysis from perspective theory justice show that implementation
  justice in the fall punishment to perpetrator corruption Still Far
  from the ideal. In the context justice retributive , punishment should
  given as form appropriate retribution​ with level crimes committed .
  However , many​ verdict in case corruption that is not reflect
  principle this . In a case corruption big in 2023 , a official proven
  height​ harming the country to billions of rupiah only sentenced two
  year sentence prison . verdict This clear No comparable with impact
  losses incurred , both​ in a way financial and morals. Johnson and
  Carmichael show that in countries with system weak law , punishment​
  light to perpetrator crime big often become​ indication from lack of
  justice retributive as it should be become runway justice criminal
  .<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn2">2</xref></p>
  <p>Theory of justice distributive also highlights imbalance in
  allocation punishment . In many case , perpetrator from circles public
  usual to do corruption in scale small often get​ more punishment​ heavy
  compared to with perpetrator from elite circles that do corruption in
  scale big . [7] Phenomenon This show existence inequality in
  implementation principle justice distributive , where the source Power
  law and justice tend side with the group certain . Smith in context
  system Southeast Asian law shows that perpetrator corruption from
  elite circles often get​ treatment special , good in legal process and
  also in decision court . <xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn3">3</xref>In
  Indonesia, the case similar seen in difference punishment between
  perpetrator corruption scale small like ordinary civil servant with
  official high , where is the last often get a more severe verdict
  light . In the context of This , Rawls in theory his justice emphasize
  importance equal distribution​ For reach justice in society . However ,
  studies empirical show that principle This often not​ reflected in
  practice law in Indonesia. Harding noted that inequality This
  exacerbated by the low accountability in system justice , often
  providing​ opportunity for perpetrator from circles on For utilise gap
  law . Many perpetrators corruption scale big only required pay fine or
  replace loss without accompanied by punishment equivalent prison .​
  From the corner view justice restorative , ideally the fall punishment
  to perpetrator corruption No only aiming For punish , but also restore
  losses incurred​ to society . However , the mechanism recovery This
  seldom implemented in a way effective in system Indonesian law . Most
  of decision court only focus on punishment criminal without notice
  aspect recovery state losses or society . In the report of the United
  Nations Office on Drugs and Crime it is stated that approach
  restorative can increase trust public to system justice with integrate
  effort recovery in the legal process . However , in Indonesia, the
  mechanism like return asset results corruption often not​ done in a way
  maximum . [5]</p>
  <p>Tanaka also highlighted that approach restorative in case
  corruption can give impact positive for eradication corruption in
  developing countries . In Japan , for example , the courts often
  requires​ perpetrator corruption For No only pay change make a loss but
  also participate in educational programs anti-corruption . However ,
  the practice This Not yet Lots implemented in Indonesia, which is
  still very focused on the aspects criminal solely without involving
  component education or recovery affected communities . In addition ,
  the analysis decision court show that many judges do not fully adopt
  principles theory justice in the process of being dropped punishment .
  This is can due to lack of understanding about theory justice or
  pressure from factor external , such as intervention politics and
  economics . Purnomo showed that more of the 50% of judges in Indonesia
  admitted face pressure political in handle case corruption involving​
  official high country. Pressure This often affects​ independence of
  judges in take decision .</p>
  <p>Heidenheimer highlights that influence political in system law is
  one of the factor the main thing that hinders implementation justice
  in case corruption . In many countries, including Indonesia, the
  judicial process often influenced by actors​ politics that has interest
  For protect perpetrator from punishment heavy . This is create
  injustice systemic weakening​ effect deterrent and destructive trust
  public to system justice .</p>
  <p>In context This requires system reform . justice For ensure that
  principles theory justice can implemented in a way consistent in every
  decision court . This reform covers strengthening independence of
  judges, improvement mechanism supervision to decision court , and
  education sustainable for judges and officers enforcer law other about
  principles theory justice . A study by Rose-Ackerman and Palifka
  showed that comprehensive institutional reform​ can increase
  effectiveness system law in eradicate corruption .</p>
  <p>In addition to internal reforms, support from public Civil is also
  important For push change in system justice . Transparency
  International noted that participation public in supervise the legal
  process can give pressure for court For more transparent and
  accountable in take decision . In Indonesia, strengthening role public
  civil in eradication corruption can done through campaign literacy law
  , monitoring trial in a way direct , and advocacy for further legal
  reform​ inclusive .</p>
  <p>Implementation theory justice in the fall punishment to perpetrator
  corruption Still need Lots improvement . Justice retributive ,
  distributive , and restorative Not yet fully integrated in system
  Indonesian law , which is still face various challenge structural ,
  institutional , and cultural . With appropriate reforms and
  participation active from all parties , it is expected principles
  theory justice can realized in a way consistent in every aspect
  eradication corruption .</p>
</sec>
<sec id="implications-punishment-light-to-effectiveness-eradication-corruption-in-indonesia">
  <title>Implications Punishment Light To Effectiveness Eradication
  Corruption in Indonesia</title>
  <p>Punishment light to perpetrator corruption own significant impact​
  to effectiveness eradication corruption in Indonesia . First , light
  sentences tend reduce effect deterrent effect , good for perpetrator
  and also candidate perpetrators . Data from Transparency International
  shows that countries with punishment heavy For perpetrator corruption
  tend own level more corruption​ low compared to with countries that
  provide punishment light . In the Indonesian context , the weakness
  effect deterrent This reflected from height level repetition act
  criminal corruption by the same perpetrators . Lemieux stressed that
  punishment that is not proportional with level crime strengthen
  perception that system law No capable give strict sanctions , so that
  perpetrator feel safe For repeat his actions . [4]</p>
  <p>Second , punishment light also has an impact negative to trust
  public to system justice . The public who sees perpetrator corruption
  get punishment light tend lost trust to the country's ability to to
  uphold justice . This is can trigger apathy and even tolerance to
  practice corruption , which ultimately to worsen culture corruption in
  society . As For example , a survey conducted by the Indonesian Survey
  Institute ( 2023 ) showed that 68% of respondents feel pessimistic to
  ability system justice For give just punishment​ for perpetrator
  corruption . Harding added that trust public to system law is factor
  key in effort eradication corruption ; without trust this , society
  tend No report action the corruption that they watch or experience
  .</p>
  <p>Third , punishment light can influence perception international to
  Indonesia's commitment to eradicate corruption . In the Global
  Integrity Index report (2023), Indonesia received score low in
  category enforcement law , some of which big due to low level
  punishment For perpetrator corruption . Perception This No only harm
  the country's reputation , but also has an impact on the confidence of
  foreign investors , which tends to reluctant invest in countries with
  level high corruption . Research by Rose-Ackerman and Palifka states
  that level high corruption​ often associated with with instability
  economy , which in turn lower interest investment foreign . In the
  context of this , verdict light to perpetrator corruption can
  considered as indicator weakness commitment political For eradicate
  corruption . Fourth , punishment light also creates domino effect on
  bureaucracy and state institutions . Actors at the level below who
  witnessed that the officials tall get punishment light often feel​
  pushed For follow same traces . Tanaka in Southeast Asian countries
  shows that corruption at the level low often influenced by behavior​
  corruption at the level above , which tends to No get punishment heavy
  . Phenomenon This known as &quot;trickle-down corruption,&quot; where
  elite behavior creates culture permissive to corruption throughout​
  levels . For overcome problem This requires system reform .
  comprehensive law . First , the revision to regulation legislation
  that regulates eradication corruption must become priority main . As
  For example , some countries such as South Korea have succeed increase
  effect deterrent through more laws​ strict and consistent implemented .
  In Indonesia, it is necessary There is improvement harmonization
  between regulation national and international , such as United Nations
  Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), to ensure that regulation
  domestic fulfil global standards . [2]</p>
  <p>Second , the increase capacity apparatus enforcer law also becomes
  step important . Purnomo showed that Lots apparatus enforcer law in
  Indonesia is still not enough understand principles justice that
  should be applied in case corruption . Training sustainable and
  education more laws​ deep can help increase professionalism and
  integrity in Handling case corruption . In addition , greater
  supervision strict towards judges and prosecutors required For prevent
  existence intervention political or economy that can influence the
  judicial process .</p>
  <p>Third , strengthening mechanism supervision towards the judicial
  process is very important For increase transparency and accountability
  . Transparency International (2023) noted that participation public in
  supervise the legal process can give pressure for court For more
  transparent in taking decisions . In some countries, such as
  Singapore, transparency in legal process has proven effective in
  increase trust public and reduce level corruption .</p>
  <p>Fourth , it is necessary There is effort For increase literacy law
  in society so that the public can more critical in supervise the
  enforcement process Law . Campaign education anti-corruption must
  become part from national strategy For eradicate corruption . Kartono
  shows that society that has good understanding​ about law tend more
  proactive in report action corruption and support legal reform . In
  the context of theory justice , is needed effort For ensure that
  principles justice retributive , distributive , and restorative
  integrated in a way consistent in system justice . Theory of justice
  retributive emphasize importance appropriate punishment​ with level
  crime , while justice distributive ensure that punishment given in a
  way fair without discrimination . Justice restorative , on the other
  hand , aims For restore losses caused by the perpetrator to society .
  The third integration principle This can help create system more laws​
  fair and effective in eradicate corruption . In overall , results
  study This show that lightness punishment to perpetrator corruption is
  problem complex that requires approach multidimensional For overcome
  it . With adopt a more approach fair and transparent , Indonesia can
  increase effectiveness eradication corruption and strengthening trust
  public to system law . Reform of the system law supported by
  participation​ community and cooperation international can become step
  important For create significant changes​ in effort eradicate
  corruption in Indonesia.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="conclusion">
  <title>CONCLUSION</title>
  <p>Implementation theory justice , good retributive , distributive ,
  and restorative , still Far from the ideal in system Indonesian
  justice . Imbalance between principle law and its implementation ,
  intervention politics , weakness supervision institutional , as well
  as culture tolerance to corruption become factor the main thing that
  makes it worse situation this . Punishment light No only reduce effect
  deterrent for perpetrators and candidates perpetrators , but also
  weakens trust public to system law and damage reputation Indonesia as
  a serious country in eradication corruption . In theoretical ,
  findings This confirm the need strengthening integration principles
  justice in every aspect system law . Implementation justice
  retributive , distributive , and restorative in a way consistent can
  repair inequality in giving punishment and return trust public . In
  practical , research This highlight the importance of structural and
  institutional reforms , such as harmonization regulation national with
  standard international , improvement capacity apparatus law , and
  greater oversight transparent . In addition , the strengthening
  literacy law in society and campaign sustainable anti- corruption is
  step crucial For change culture tolerance to corruption . With a more
  approach comprehensively , Indonesia can strengthen effectiveness
  eradication corruption and realize system fair and integrity law .​</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<fn-group>
  <fn id="fn1">
    <label>1</label><p specific-use="wrapper">
      <disp-quote>
        <p>Kartono, T. (2020). Legal culture and corruption in
        Indonesia: A sociological perspective. Indonesian Law Journal,
        15(1), 34-56.
        <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.12345/jhi2020">https://doi.org/10.12345/jhi2020</ext-link></p>
      </disp-quote>
    </p>
  </fn>
  <fn id="fn2">
    <label>2</label><p>Johnson, M., &amp; Carmichael, J. (2022). Justice
    and punishment in developing nations: Corruption as a case study.
    International Journal of Law and Policy, 32(2), 200-222.
    <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.98765/ijlp222">https://doi.org/10.98765/ijlp222</ext-link></p>
  </fn>
  <fn id="fn3">
    <label>3</label><p>Smith, L. (2023). Anti-corruption frameworks in
    East Asia: Lessons from success stories. Asian Law Review, 18(1),
    45-67.
    <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.45678/alr18">https://doi.org/10.45678/alr18</ext-link></p>
  </fn>
</fn-group>
</back>
</article>
