This article examines the role of evidentiary thresholds in shaping the reality of Indonesia’s criminal justice system. Drawing on personal experience as a defense lawyer and criminal procedure expert assisting investigations and trials, as well as relevant literature, this article argues that Indonesia’s low evidentiary threshold facilitates confirmation bias, investigative manipulation, and systemic abuse of power. To facilitate this discussion, the article first provides a theoretical framework for understanding the factors that influence nations to adopt high or low thresholds, along with the associated consequences. Subsequently, it examines the origins and evolution of evidentiary thresholds in Indonesia. Moreover, it discusses how low evidentiary thresholds in both the pre-trial and trial stages foster a bias-prone environment that undermines the pursuit of truth and increases susceptibility to manipulation. Lastly, the article proposes solutions to these systemic problems and highlights obstacles to their implementation.
AfandiF (2019) The justice system postman: The Indonesian prosecution service at work. In: CrouchM (ed) The Politics of Court Reform: Judicial Change and Legal Culture in Indonesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 86–106.
2.
AfandiF (2021) Maintaining order: Public prosecutors in post-authoritarian countries, the case of Indonesia. PhD Thesis, Leiden, The Netherlands.
3.
AfandiFBednerA (2022) Between upholding the rule of law and maintaining security: Criminal justice actors in Indonesia’s constitution. In: CrouchM (ed) Constitutional Democracy in Indonesia. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 67–88.
4.
AlkonC (2014) The U.S. Supreme court’s failure to fix plea bargaining: The impact of Lafler and Frye. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly41: 62.
5.
AssegafR (2020) Criminal sentencing in Indonesia: Disparity, disproportionality and biases. PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne, Australia.
6.
BakerJ (2012) The rise of Polri: Democratisation and the political economy of security in Indonesia. PhD Thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK.
7.
BakerJ (2015) The rhizome state: Democratizing Indonesia’s off-budget economy. Critical Asian Studies47(2). Routledge: 309–336.
8.
BednerA (2013) Indonesian legal scholarship and jurisprudence as an obstacle for transplanting legal institutions. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law5(02): 253–273.
9.
BibasS (2004) Plea bargaining outside the shadow of trial. Harvard Law Review86: 2463–2547.
10.
BloembergR (2018) The development of the criminal law of evidence in the Netherlands, France and Germany between 1750 and 1870. PhD Thesis, University of Groningen, The Netherland.
11.
BloembergRG (2019) The development of the “modern” criminal law of evidence in English law and in France, Germany and The Netherlands: 1750–1900. American Journal of Legal History59(3): 358–401.
12.
BrantsCFieldS (2016) Truth-finding, procedural traditions and cultural trust in The Netherlands and England and Wales: When strengths become weaknesses. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof20(4): 266–288.
13.
ButtSNathanielA (2024) Evidence from criminal law experts in Indonesian criminal trials: Usurping the judicial function?The International Journal of Evidence & Proof28(2): 129–153.
14.
CardwellGM (1997) Inquisitorial to adversarial: The changing roles of the Italian legal profession. MSc thesis, Central Missouri State University, USA.
15.
ChiLLLanNTNganNH (2023) The presence of the defense lawyer in Vietnam’s criminal justice system: Substantive or cosmetic?Hasanuddin Law Review9(1): 20.
16.
ChinTY (2009) Remaking the evidence code: Search for values. Singapore Academy Law Journal. 21: 52–96.
17.
DahlmanCSteinATuzetG (2021) Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law. 1st edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
DamaskaM (1973) Evidentiary barriers to conviction and two models of criminal procedure: A comparative study. University of Pennsylvania Law Review121(3): 506.
19.
DamaskaMR (1991) The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process. Yale University Press.
20.
DamaškaM (1998) Truth in adjudication. Hastings Law Journal49: 289–308.
21.
DamaskaMR (2008) Evidence Law Adrift. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22.
DiantiF (2024) Hukum Pembuktian Pidana di Indonesia: Perpandingan HIR dan KUHAP (Edisi Revisi). Sinar Grafika.
FindleyKAScottMS (2006) The multiple dimensions of tunnel vision in criminal cases. Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1023.
25.
FitzpatrickD (2008) Culture, ideology and human rights: the case of Indonesia’s code of criminal procedure. In: LindseyT (ed) Indonesia, Law and Society. Federation Press, 502–530.
26.
GrandeE (2000) Italian criminal justice: Borrowing and resistance. The American Journal of Comparative Law48(2): 227.
27.
HansVP (2017) Trial by jury: Story of a legal transplant. Law & Society Review51(3): 471–499.
28.
HoHL (2008) A Philosophy of Evidence Law: Justice in the Search for Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
HoHL (2021) Evidence and truth. In: DahlmanCSteinATuzetG (eds) Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 11–24.
30.
HodgsonJ (2006) The role of the criminal defense lawyer in an inquisitorial procedure: Legal and ethical constraints. Legal Ethics9: 125–144.
KaganRA (2019) Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law, 2nd edn. Harvard University Press.
33.
KouwagamS (2020) Role of lawyers in and conflict. PhD Thesis, University of Leiden, The Netherlands.
34.
LaiHH (2010) Liberalism and the Criminal Trial. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies. 2010(July): 87–106.
35.
LamchekJ (2019) Arresting a due process revolution the reform of Indonesia’s code of criminal procedure and the persistence of history. In: CiocchiniPRadicsG (eds) Criminal Legalities in the Global South: Cultural Dynamics, Political Tensions, and Institutional Practices. Routledge, 166–181.
36.
LangbeinJH (2006) Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe in the Ancien Régime. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37.
LeLCHoangYHBuiHT, et al. (2024) Wrongful convictions in Asian countries: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice48(4): 345–361.
38.
LeoRADrizinSA (2010) The three errors: Pathways to false confession and wrongful conviction. Univ. of San Francisco Law Research Paper No. 2012-04.
39.
LevDS (1965) The politics of judicial development in Indonesia. Comparative Studies in Society and History7(2): 173–199.
40.
LevDS (1999) The criminal regime: Criminal process in Indonesia. In: VicenteR (ed) Figures of Criminality in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Colonial Vietnam. Cornell University Press, 175–192.
41.
LidénM (2023) Confirmation Bias in Criminal Cases. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
LiuSHallidayTC (2009) Recursivity in legal change: Lawyers and reforms of China’s criminal procedure law. Law & Social Inquiry34(4): 911–950.
43.
LiuSHallidayTC (2016) Criminal Defense in China: The Politics of Lawyers at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
LuH (2003) Power, corruption and the legal process in China. International Criminal Justice Review 13(1): 28–49.
45.
LubisTM (1993) In Search of Human Rights: Legal-Political Dilemmas of Indonesia’s New Order, 1966–1990. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama in cooperation with SPES Foundation.
46.
McConvilleM (2011) Criminal Justice in China : An Empirical Inquiry. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
47.
McConvilleM (2017) Comparative empirical co-ordinates and the dynamics of criminal justice in China and the west. In: LiuJTraversMChangLYC (eds) Comparative Criminology in Asia. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 45–60.
48.
MouL (2021) The political heart of China’s exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence: A comparative study with the international criminal court. Journal of East Asia and International Law14(2): 319–340.
PackerHL (1964) Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review: 1–68.
51.
PangaribuanA (2025a) Authority, rights, and reform: Legislative struggles over Indonesia’s criminal procedure code (1979–1981). Asian Journal of Comparative Law. doi: 10.1017/asjcl.2025.10004.
52.
PangaribuanA (2025b) Navigating an authoritarian landscape: Criminal procedure and defence lawyers in Indonesia. Australian Journal of Asian Law 25(2): 43–84.
53.
PanggabeanRM (2010) Rancangan undang-undang hukum acara pidana dari perspektif polri sebagai penyidik [the draft of Indonesian criminal procedure code reform from the police’s perspective as an investigator]. MMH Jurnal3: 12.
54.
PardoMS (2023) What makes evidence sufficient?Arizona Law Review65: 431–478.
55.
PicinaliF (2015) The threshold lies in the method: Instructing jurors about reasoning beyond reasonable doubt. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof19(3): 139–153.
56.
PizziWT (2016) The effects of the “Vanishing Trial” on our incarceration rate. Federal Sentencing Reporter: FSR22: 330–339.
57.
PizziWTMontagnaM (2004) The battle to establish an adversarial trial system in Italy. Michigan International Law Journal40: 429–466.
PowellMBHughes-ScholesCHSharmanSJ (2012) Skill in interviewing reduces confirmation bias. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 9(2): 126–134.
60.
StrangRR (2008) ‘More adversarial, but not completely adversarial’: Reformasi of the Indonesian criminal procedure code. Fordham International Law Journal46: 188–231.
Weidong (2013) The judicial reform in China: The status quo and future directions. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies20(1): 185.
63.
ZhangBZhengF (2014) Reforming the criminal evidence system in China. Asian Journal of Criminology9(2): 103–124.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
