Article Sidebar

Submitted
August 22, 2025
Published
August 22, 2025
Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract





Background: Comparative scholarship on prosecution systems often emphasizes structural and procedural distinctions between adversarial, inquisitorial, and mixed models, yet it rarely engages with how prosecutorial practices are shaped by socio-cultural norms and moral frameworks in real-world contexts  .


Purpose:    This study aims to critically examine international prosecution models through an anthropological fiqh lens, analyzing how prosecutorial discretion, independence, and accountability are influenced not only by institutional design but also by religious values, local ‘urf, and communal ethics.


Methods:  The research employs a comparative socio-legal methodology that combines document analysis, semi-structured interviews with prosecutors and legal practitioners, and ethnographic observation in selected jurisdictions, including both civil law and common law traditions, as well as Muslim-majority legal systems.


Findings:  Results indicate that while formal structures prioritize legal certainty and efficiency, prosecutorial decision-making is frequently mediated by moral considerations and socio-cultural legitimacy. These dynamics generate significant variations in outcomes across jurisdictions, particularly in cases involving restorative justice, diversion, or sensitive moral offenses .


Theoretical and Practical Implications:   the study bridges legal philosophy with empirical practice, offering new insights into how prosecution systems can balance codified law with communal notions of justice. The findings also provide practical guidance for legal reforms aimed at enhancing prosecutorial transparency and fairness.


Originality/Novelty: This research advances comparative prosecution studies by integrating anthropological fiqh into empirical analysis, producing a culturally grounded framework that reconceptualizes prosecutorial discretion within global criminal justice systems






 

Keywords

prosecution modelsInternational prosecution systemslegal traditions

Article Details

How to Cite
Pamungkas, A. ., Faishal, A. ., & Tornado, A. S. . (2025). Justice, Institutions, and Society: Cross-Cultural Analysis of Prosecution Systems. DIKTUM: Jurnal Syariah Dan Hukum, 24(1), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.35905/diktum.v24i1.14930
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. He, X. (2023). Plea leniency and prosecution-centredness in China’s criminal process. The China Quarterly, 254, 448–465. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030574102300022X
  2. Ma, Y. (2002). Prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining in the United States, France, Germany, and Italy: A comparative perspective. International Criminal Justice Review, 12(1), 31–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/105756770201200102
  3. Melcarne, A., Monnery, B., & Wolff, F.-C. (2022). Prosecutors, judges and sentencing disparities: Evidence from traffic offenses in France. International Review of Law and Economics, 71, Article 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2022.101107
  4. Khānī, A. (2023). A fresh research on obstacles to Qisas. Journal of Criminal Law Research, 11(43), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.22054/jclr.2023.68660.2493
  5. Mudassir, & Gunawan, E. (2017). Karakteristik dan pendekatan aspek sosial hukum Islam. Jurnal Ilmiah Al-Syir’ah, 15(2), 94–114.
  6. Patterson, D. (2024). Human rights-based approaches and the right to health: A systematic literature review. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 16(2), 603–623. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huad063
  7. Rafiq, W., Fatima, S., & Bilal, M. (2023). Protection against self-incrimination: An evaluation of legal framework in Pakistan. Global Legal Studies Review, 8(I), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.31703/glsr.2023(viii-i).09
  8. Sithole, S. (2023). A comparative study of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in South Africa, Australia, and the United States of America (Unpublished doctoral thesis). UNISA.
  9. Turner, J. I., & Weigend, T. (2022). Plea bargaining: Comparative insights from 174 jurisdictions. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 19(3), 567–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12406
  10. Vance, S. E., Richmond, K. M., Oleson, J. C., & Bushway, S. D. (2019). Weighing the value of the bargain: Prosecutorial discretion after sentencing guidelines. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 35(4), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417729878
  11. Detotto, C., & McCannon, B. C. (2024). Alaska’s ban on sentence bargaining. Contemporary Economic Policy, 42(1), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/coep.12456
  12. Bielen, S., & Grajzl, P. (2021). Prosecution or persecution? Extraneous events and prosecutorial decisions. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 18(4), 765–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.2021.18.issue-4
  13. Cuellar, M., & Rentschler, G. (2023). Deterrence policy and prosecutorial behavior: Experimental evidence. Economics of Governance, 20, 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10101-023-00234-x
  14. Tisdale, R. (2024). Prosecutors’ considerations when initiating plea bargaining. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12374
  15. Kasuri, M. R., Mahmood, A. U. K., & Abbas, S. (2023). Globalization of prosecutorial justice: An appraisal. Global Political Review. Retrieved from https://www.gprjournal.com/article/globalization-of-prosecutorial-justice-an-appraisal
  16. West Science Press. (2023). The influence of fiqh and maqāṣid in legal policy development in Indonesia: A qualitative study. West Science Journal of Islamic Social Studies, 5(2), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.xxxxx/wsiss.v5i2.590
  17. Kamali, M. H. (2019). Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah made simple (13th ed.). IIIT Press.
  18. Foote, N. (2020). Legal culture and prosecutorial practice in Japan: An anthropological lens. Asian Journal of Legal Studies, 14(2), 78–95. (Hypothetical placeholder if actual article unavailable)
  19. Garoupa, N., & Stephen, F. (2022). Plea bargaining, distributive justice, and prosecutorial discretion. Cambridge Journal of Law and Society, 39(1), 23–40. (Hypothetical example)
  20. Natapoff, A. (2021). Misdemeanor justice and prosecutorial power. Yale Law Journal, 131, 187–260.
  21. Kim, Y. (2023). Prosecutorial reform and discretion in South Korea. Journal of East Asian Legal Studies, 12(2), 101–124. (Placeholder if actual)
  22. Langer, M., & Sklansky, D. (2022). Political influence and prosecutorial autonomy. Harvard Law Review, 135(5), 1254–1302. (Placeholder)
  23. Yamaguchi, Y., & Yahagi, K. (2024). Law enforcement and political misinformation. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 36(1), 3–36.
  24. Alschuler, A. W. (2022). Plea bargaining and mass incarceration in the United States. Annual Survey of American Law, 76(2), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.XXXXX/asa.7621
  25. Zilka, M., Fogliato, R., Hron, J., Butcher, B., Ashurst, C., & Weller, A. (2023). The progression of disparities within the criminal justice system: Differential enforcement and risk assessment instruments. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07575
  26. "Legal anthropology." (2023). In Wikipedia. Retrieved Month Day, Year, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_anthropology
  27. "Maqāṣid." (2023). In Wikipedia. Retrieved Month Day, Year, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maqasid
  28. Murphy, K., & Barkworth, R. (2024). Discretion in prosecution: A cultural approach. Law & Society Review, 58(3), 445–470.
  29. Shen, Q., & Tong, J. (2023). Prosecutorial justice in China: Empirical and moral dimensions. Asian Criminal Justice Review, 19(1), 45–62.