Factors of politeness as reason for mitigation in judge's decision: Is it still relevant to be maintained?

Abstract

Background: Judges play a crucial role in the judicial process. According to Article 1 point 8 of Law Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure (KUHAP), a judge is a state official authorized to adjudicate cases. Their duties include examining, deciding, and resolving cases. In making decisions, judges consider both aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors may include the defendant having previous convictions, while mitigating factors may include polite behavior during court proceedings. This article focuses on polite behavior as a mitigating factor. It explores how judges assess politeness in court and whether this factor remains relevant in modern criminal case decisions. Methods: To answer this problem, the author researches using the socio-legal method, where the author will examine the problem with legal norms governing polite elements as a reason for mitigation and supported by surveys to support data from existing norms and decisions related to this matter. Findings: Judges still consider the element of modesty as a reason to mitigate punishment in criminal cases. From the results of a survey of 76 judges from 64 courts, 49 respondents stated that the element of civility is still relevant to be maintained in the judicial process. Factors considered by judges as indicators of the defendant's civility in court include polite language, cooperative attitude, and non-verbal expressions that show respect for the trial process. Conclusion: This research shows that the element of modesty is still considered relevant by the majority of judges as a mitigating consideration. The defendant's demeanor in court can signal remorse and good faith which influences the judge's decision. Novelty/Originality of this article: This research combines a normative approach and socio-legal methods that are rarely used in the study of mitigating circumstances. A survey of 76 judges from different regions and ethnic backgrounds in Indonesia provides valuable insights into the actual practice of civility considerations in trials. This article confirms that the relevance of modesty is not just a formal tradition, but also reflects important social and cultural dynamics in the judicial process in Indonesia.