IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/lawdev/v15y2022i1p121-146n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reviewing the Indonesian Anticorruption Court: A Cost-Effective Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ramadhan Choky Risda

    (Universitas Indonesia Fakultas Hukum, Depok, Indonesia)

Abstract

As part of anticorruption reform, the Indonesian Anticorruption Court Law 2009 mandated the establishment of 514 anti-corruption courts in every city. The Indonesian Supreme Court, however, could only establish 34 courts. Three factors that explain this delay: (1) a lack of budget to fund the court; (2) the limited number of people with the integrity and capacity to serve as ad hoc judges; and (3) distrust from citizens regarding the conviction rate and corruption that occurred within the anticorruption court. Some activist and legal scholars proposed either to evaluate or even abolish the anticorruption court. This article contributes in evaluating the newly created court. There are two indicators, cost per case and collection of monetary penalty that could serve as the basis of cost-effectiveness analysis of the Indonesian Anticorruption Court. As a preliminary review, the prosecution of the crime of corruption is cost-effective if the cases had been prosecuted by the Anticorruption Agency (KPK). Alternative policies based on cost-effectiveness are proposed to improve the performance of the anticorruption court without sacrificing resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Ramadhan Choky Risda, 2022. "Reviewing the Indonesian Anticorruption Court: A Cost-Effective Analysis," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 121-146, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:15:y:2022:i:1:p:121-146:n:7
    DOI: 10.1515/ldr-2021-0107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2021-0107
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ldr-2021-0107?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:15:y:2022:i:1:p:121-146:n:7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.