This study aims to analyze the legal construction, requirements, procedures, and legal consequences of commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment under the Indonesian National Criminal Code following the enactment of Law Number 1 of 2026 on Criminal Penalty Adjustment, as well as to examine its implementation from the perspective of justice. This study employs a normative juridical method using statutory and conceptual approaches, with descriptive-analytical specifications and qualitative analysis of primary and secondary legal materials. The novelty of this study lies in its comparative analysis of the two legal constructions for commuting the death penalty under Articles 100 and 101 of the Indonesian National Criminal Code following the adjustment introduced by Law Number 1 of 2026. The findings reveal distinct legal characteristics between the two mechanisms. Article 100 places the evaluation of the convict’s individual development as the basis for commuting the sentence, making justice dependent on the availability of objective, measurable, transparent, and consistent assessment indicators. Article 101 establishes the fulfillment of a prescribed period and factual requirements as the basis for commuting the death penalty by operation of law, making justice primarily dependent on certainty in calculating the relevant period and the timely implementation of the change in the convict’s legal status. These findings indicate that the different procedures under Articles 100 and 101 do not necessarily produce different standards of justice, provided that both mechanisms are implemented based on the principles of objectivity, proportionality, transparency, and legal certainty. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis konstruksi hukum, syarat, prosedur, dan akibat hukum perubahan pidana mati menjadi pidana penjara seumur hidup dalam KUHP Nasional setelah berlakunya Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2026 tentang Penyesuaian Pidana, serta menguji penerapannya dalam perspektif keadilan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan konseptual, bersifat deskriptif-analitis, serta menggunakan analisis kualitatif terhadap bahan hukum primer dan sekunder. Kebaruan penelitian terletak pada analisis komparatif terhadap dua konstruksi perubahan pidana mati yang diatur dalam Pasal 100 dan Pasal 101 KUHP Nasional setelah penyesuaian melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2026. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan adanya perbedaan karakter hukum antara kedua mekanisme tersebut. Pasal 100 menempatkan evaluasi terhadap perkembangan individual terpidana sebagai dasar perubahan pidana, sehingga keadilan bergantung pada ketersediaan indikator penilaian yang objektif, terukur, transparan, dan konsisten. Pasal 101 menempatkan terpenuhinya batas waktu dan persyaratan faktual sebagai dasar perubahan pidana demi hukum, sehingga persoalan keadilan terutama berkaitan dengan kepastian penghitungan waktu dan ketepatan pelaksanaan perubahan status pidana. Temuan tersebut menunjukkan bahwa perbedaan prosedur antara Pasal 100 dan Pasal 101 tidak harus menghasilkan perbedaan standar keadilan, sepanjang keduanya diterapkan berdasarkan prinsip objektivitas, proporsionalitas, transparansi, dan kepastian hukum.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silitonga et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: