Cultural Studies and Criminology for Indonesia: An Analysis of the Structure of Crime Control Policy
Abstract
The criminal policy of a heterogeneous society like Indonesia should consider the diversity of the social values and norms of the society. The Indonesian ongoing criminal policies do not meet with this notion since it simply relies on the assumption that in order to unite Indonesia, there should be only one single criminal policy for all. This paper promoted cultural criminology in dealing with crime problems that fit with the diversity of ethnic groups in Indonesia, in that the criminal policy maker should let that every ethnic group solve their crime problems based on their own wisdom, i.e., the tradition of toleration, adaptation, and restoration.
References
[1] Bovenkerk, F., Yucel Yesilgöz (2004). ”Crime, Ethnicity and the Multicultural Administration of Justice.” In Ferrel, J., K. Hayward, W. Morrison, M. Presde (Eds) (2004). Cultural Criminology Unleashed. London: Glasshouse Press.
[2] Braithwaite, J. (1996) ”Restorative Justice for a better future?”. Dalhouse Law Review, 76, 1, pp. 9-32.
[3] Dye, T.R. (2011). Understanding Public Policy. Boston: Pearson.
[4] Green, Judith M. (2004). ”Participatory Democracy: Movements, Campaigns, and Democratic Living,” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, New Series, Vol. 18, No. 1, Pragmatism and Deliberative Politics, pp. 60-71.
[5] Huber, Evelyne, Dietrich Rueschemeyer and John D. Stephens (1997). ”The Paradoxes of Contemporary Democracy: Formal, Participatory, and Social Dimensions,” Comparative Politics, Vol. 29, No. 3, Transitions to Democracy: A Special Issue in Memory of Dankwart A. Rustow (Apr.), pp. 323-342
[6] Le Hir, Marie-Pierre (1996). ”Defining French Cultural Studies”. The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Spring), pp. 76-86.
[7] Michalowski, R. J. (1977). ”Perspective and Paradigm. Structuring Criminological Thought”, in Robert F. Meier (Ed). Theory in Criminology. Contemporary Views. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication, pp. 17-39.
[8] Milovasovic, Dragan (1997). ”Dueling Paradigms: Modernist V. Postmodernist Thought” (Revised version from Humanity and Society (1991): 1-22, 1995; and revised in Dragan Milovanovic, Postmodern Criminology. New York: Garland Publishing.
[9] Newburn, Tim (2007). Criminology. Devon: Willan Publishing.
[10] Pateman, Carole (2012). ”Participatory Democracy Revisited,” Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 10, No. 1 (March), pp. 7-19.
[11] Sellin, T. (1970). ”The Conflict of Conduct Norms”, in M.E. Wolfgang et.al. The sociology of Crime and Delinquency. 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. pp. 186-189.
[12] Simorangkir, J.C.T, and Woerjono Sastropranoto (1960). Peladjaran Hukum Indonesia. Djakarta: Penerbit Gunung Agung.
[13] Wolfgang, M.E. and F. Ferracuti (1970). ”The Sub Culture of Violence”, in M.E. Wolfgang et.al. The Sociology of Crime and Delinquency. 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. pp. 380-391.