Indonesia has entered an important phase in its legal history with the enactment of the National Criminal Code (KUHP) and the agenda for the renewal of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) since January 2, 2026. This change is often seen as a symbol of legal decolonization, marking the end of dependence on colonial-era criminal law that is more than a century old.[1] This momentum raises optimism that Indonesian criminal law finally has its own face, born from the values and needs of the national community.

However, legal reform is not sufficiently judged by its origins or historical symbolism. This raises the question of whether this new criminal law truly brings substantial changes in the way the state treats its citizens, or merely presents normative reforms without real transformation in practice?

Criminal law has a special character because it is directly related to the use of coercive state power. When the state imposes a sentence, it is not only a person's right to move that is restricted, but also their dignity and fundamental freedoms.[2] Therefore, criminal law should not be understood merely as a collection of prohibitions and threats of sanctions, but as a mirror of how the state views its citizens: as subjects to be protected or as objects of control.

From this perspective, criminal law reform should be directed at limiting state power proportionally, not at expanding the scope of criminalization. A democratic state governed by the rule of law demands that criminal law be used carefully and as ultimum remedium.

Legacy of the Old Paradigm and the Burden of the Sentencing System

For decades, the colonial Criminal Code shaped criminal law practices that were oriented towards retribution. Imprisonment became the primary response to almost every violation of the law, regardless of the effectiveness of the punishment or its social impact.[3] As a result, the correctional system in Indonesia has experienced chronic overcapacity and has failed to carry out its rehabilitative function.

The National Criminal Code comes with the promise of a paradigm shift. The sentencing approach is beginning to open up space for alternative punishments such as social work, probation, and an emphasis on proportionality.[4] Normatively, this reflects an effort to make sentencing more rational and humane.

Although it brings progressive ideas, changes at the normative level do not automatically guarantee changes at the practical level. Law enforcement experience in Indonesia shows that law enforcement officials are often trapped in formalistic and legalistic ways of thinking.[5] Law enforcement is more focused on fulfilling the elements of the article, not on achieving substantive justice.