Corrections (Pemasyarakatan) after Law Number 22 of 2022: New Principles and Policy Identification Regarding the Functions of Probation and Parole Offices

Iqrak Sulhin


The enactment of Law Number 22 of 2022 concerning Corrections (Pemasyarakatan), which replaces the previous Law Number 12 of 1995, significantly changes the implementation of Correctional functions, mainly the functions carried out by Probation and Parole Offices. If in the 1995 Law Corrections is only referred to as the final part of the Criminal Justice System, the new Law emphasizes the position of Corrections which are more integrated with the entire criminal justice process, so that Correctional functions are carried out at the pre-adjudication, adjudication, and post-adjudication stages. This amendment to the law is also interesting to be studied conceptually, especially to find out what principles are contained in it that form the basis for implementing the functions of Corrections. In line with this, it is also essential to identify what kind of policy changes should be carried out regarding the functions of Probation and Parole Offices in the future with the existence of new principles and differences of provisions in terms of the implementation of corrections functions. By using conceptual analysis methods, particularly policy detection analysis, which is technically carried out in two stages; first, the analysis stage of the content of the law and second, the theoretical coherence analysis stage, this paper comes to two conclusions. First, this paper finds an affirmation of new principles in Law Number 22 of 2022, namely the principle of restorative reintegration, the principle of evidence-based treatments, the principle of individualization, the principle of continuity, and the principle of collaboration. Second, this paper identifies 5 (five) policy changes that need to be made regarding the function of the Probation and Parole Office according to those principles. The policies that must be implemented can be divided into three groups—first, the need for further operationalization of the restorative reintegration concept described by this law. Second, the need for reformulation of various instruments needed in implementing functions, especially social inquiry reports. Third, the need for facilitative strengthening, especially the quantity and quality of probation and parole officers and other facilitative supports.


restorative-reintegration; evidence-based; individualization; continuity; collaborative

  Full Text:



Alarid, Leanne F, and Philip L Reichel. Corrections. 3rd ed. New York: Pearson, 2018.

Couzens, J. Richard. “Realignment and Evidence-Based Practice A New Era in Sentencing California Felonies.” Federal Sentencing Reporter 25 No.4 (April 2013): 217–219.

Direktorat Jenderal Pemasyarakatan. Sejarah Pemasyarakatan: Dari Kepenjaraan Ke Pemasyarakatan. Jakarta: Ditjenpas Departemen Kehakiman, 1983.

Dunn, William. Pengantar Analisis Kebijakan Publik. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press, 2000.

Ernis, Yul. “Diversi Dan Keadilan Restoratif Dalam Penyelesaian Perkara Tindak Pidana Anak Di Indonesia.” Jurnal Ilmiah Kebijakan Hukum 10 no.2 (July 2016):


Furner, Jonathan. “Conceptual Analysis: A Method for Understanding Information as Evidence, and Evidence as Informations.” Archival Science 4 (2006): 233–234.

Gilsinan, James. Criminology and Public Policy: An Introduction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990.

Global Center on Cooperative Security. Implementing Evidence-Based Rehabilitative Interventions. Correcting the Course, 2017.

Gul, Rais. “Our Prisons Punitive or Rehabilitative? An Analysis of Theory and Practice.” Pluto Journals: Policy Perspectives 15 No.3 (2018): 67–83.

Hsieh, Ming-Li, Youngki Woo, Mary K Stohr, and Craig Hemmens. “Probation Officer Roles: A Statutory Analysis.” Federal Probation 79, No.3 (2015): 20–37.

Jeglic, Elizabeth L, and Cynthia Calkins. New Frontiers in Offender Treatment: The Translation of Evidence-Based Practices to Correctional Settings. Cham: Springer, 2018.

Jonson, Cheryl Lero, and Francis T Cullen. “Prisoner Reentry Programs.” Crime and Justice 44 No.1 (September 2015): 517–

Jouet, Mugambi. “Mass Incarceration Paradigm Shift? Convergence in an Age of Divergence.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 109 No.4 (2019):


Karim, Sumarsono A. Buku Materi Pokok Teknis Pemasyarakatan: Metode Dan Teknik Penelitian Kemasyarakatan. Depok: BPSDM, 2007.

Klingele, Cecelia. “The Promises and Perils of Evidence-Based Corrections.” Notre Dame Law Review 91, no. 2 (2016):


Kosterec, Milos. “Methods of Conceptual Analysis.” Filozofia 71 No.3 (2016): 221–

Latessa, Edward J, and Paul Smith. Corrections in the Community. 6th ed. New York and London: Routledge, 2015.

Lester, Patrick. “Managing Toward Evidence: State-Level Evidence Based Policymaking and the Results First Initiative.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 678 (2018): 93–102.

Lewis, Christopher. “Risk-Based Sentencing and the Principles of Punishment.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 112, No.2 (2022): 213–264.

Martinson, Robert. “What Works? Questions and Answer About Prison Reform.” The Public Interest 35 (1974): 22–54.

McElreath, David H, Linda Keena, Greg Etter, and Ellis Stuart. Introduction to Corrections. Boca Raton: CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group, 2012.

Middlemass, Keesha M, and Calvin John Smiley. Prisoner Reentry in the 21st Century: Critical Perspectives of Returning Home. New York and London: Routledge, 2020.

Moffat, Kelly Hannah, and Paula Maurutto. “Re-Contextualizing Pre-Sentence Reports: Risk and Race.” Punishment and Society 12 (3) (2010): 262–286.

Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police. “Punishment That Works -Less Crime- A Safe Society.” Federal Sentencing Reporter 31 No.1 (October 2018): 52–57.

Sarre, Rick. “Beyond What Works? A 25 Year Jubilee Retrospective of Robert Martinson’s Famous Article.” The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 34 (1) (2001): 38–46.

Stohr, Mary K, and Anthony Walsh. Corrections: From Research, to Policy, to Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc, 2018.

———. Corrections The Essentials. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc, 2019.

Syam, Asmadi. “Measuring The Concept of Restoration in Criminal Justice System.” Jurnal Ilmiah Kebijakan Hukum 16 No.2 (2022): 373–376.

Tongat, Said Noor Prasetyo, Nu’man Aunuh, and Yaris Adhial Fajrin. “Hukum Yang Hidup Dalam Masyarakat Dalam Pembaharuan Hukum Pidana Nasional.” Jurnal Konstitusi 17 No.1 (March 2020):


Tsui, Judy C. “Breaking Free of the Prison Paradigm: Integrating Restorative Justice Techniques Into Chicago’s Juvenile Justice System.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 104 No.3 (Summer 2014): 635–666.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Handbook on Restorative Justices Programmes. Vienna: United Nations, 2020.

Ward, Tony, and Shadd Maruna. Rehabilitation. London and New York: Routledge, 2007.

  Article Metric

Abstract this article has been read : 1350 times
PDF file viewed/downloaded : 501 times



Copyright (c) 2022 Iqrak Sulhin

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Jurnal Ilmiah Kebijakan Hukum Indexed by :


Complete list

Jurnal Ilmiah Kebijakan Hukum Statistic