Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Implementation in Assault Cases at the North Padang Lawas District Attorney's Office

Abstract

This study examines the implementation and effectiveness of terminating prosecution on restorative justice grounds in assault cases at the North Padang Lawas District Attorney's Office. It employs an empirical legal (socio-legal) approach with a qualitative case-study design. Primary data were obtained from purposively selected categories of informants directly involved in case handling, while documentary data comprised case registers, the 2024 restorative justice case file, relevant legislation, and recent scholarly literature. The 2024 case was assessed against Attorney General Regulation No. 15 of 2020, and institutional effectiveness was analyzed using Soerjono Soekanto's five factors of legal effectiveness, supported by source and methodological triangulation. From January 2024 to June 2026, three assault cases were recorded: one case was terminated through restorative justice in 2024, while two cases proceeded to trial in 2025. The 2024 case demonstrates a voluntary settlement process, offender accountability, victim forgiveness, community participation, hierarchical approval, and termination of prosecution. The one-in-three proportion is descriptive and should not be treated as a stand-alone measure of effectiveness. The legal framework, prosecutorial facilitation, and available facilities support implementation, whereas limited human resources, divergent interests, victim willingness, and uneven public understanding constrain its reach. Restorative justice is therefore procedurally operational in eligible cases; however, broader substantive effectiveness cannot be generalized from the small case population and requires stronger case-level documentation and post-settlement evaluation.