Technological advancements and social dynamics have drastically\nshifted the landscape of crime in Indonesia. However, our national legal\nframework remains stuck in the past. Law Number 2\/2007 on the\nEradication of Human Trafficking (UU TPPO) is no longer sufficient to\nstem the complexity of such crimes. The urgency to revise the UU TPPO is\nnot merely an academic discourse, but a pressing necessity to protect\ncitizens from increasingly sophisticated and covert modern slavery\npractices.<\/p>\n
One of the primary reasons for this legal reform is the inability of\nLaw No.\u00a021\/2007 to encompass new modes of operation, particularly\ncyber-based crimes such as online scamming. Human trafficking no longer\nalways relies on conventional mechanisms like physical detention or\ntransport; instead, it is operated by hackers and online facilitators\nwithout the need for direct interaction. Even more concerning,\nrecruitment patterns are now dominated by social media without\nface-to-face contact. The targets have also expanded into formal and\nacademic sectors, as seen in the case of the \u2018Kampus Merdeka\u2019 internship\nprogramme to Germany, which involved 33 universities.<\/p>\n
Every 30 July, the world observes the World Day Against Trafficking\nin Persons\u2014a momentum that should serve not just as a ceremony of\ncompassion, but as a call for a critical evaluation of the legal\narchitecture built to protect humans from modern slavery. In Indonesia,\nthis architecture rests on the UU TPCO, an instrument that, after nearly\ntwo decades, is showing structural cracks that can no longer be patched\nby judicial interpretation or technical policies alone. It requires a\ncomprehensive revision.<\/p>\n
Normative Gaps<\/p>\n
The UU TPPO was formulated in an era when human trafficking was\nimagined as a conventional crime limited to face-to-face recruitment,\nphysical cross-border movement, and exploitation in domestic or\nlocalised settings. However, crime does not wait for the law to evolve.\nOnline exploitation through social media recruitment, digital debt\nbondage, and forced labour controlled from outside territorial borders\nvia messaging applications are realities not fully captured by existing\narticles. This creates a \u2018norm gap\u2019\u2014a distance between the written law\nand the reality it intends to regulate. As this gap widens, the law\nloses its grip at the most critical moments, precisely when crime\nmutates faster than legislative revision.<\/p>\n
This urgency is exacerbated by a more fundamental issue: the UU TPPO,\nlike many of our criminal laws, remains too focused on punishing field\nperpetrators and fails to ensnare the intellectual architects behind\nthem. The principle of criminal liability that only targets the\n\u2018executing hand\u2019 without reaching the \u2018designing brain\u2019 is a failure\nknown by modern criminal law experts as structural impunity\u2014a situation\nwhere the legal system systematically fails to apprehend those most\nresponsible because they are hidden behind organised crime networks.<\/p>\n
Alongside the vulnerability of new methods, the aspect of victim\nrecovery in judicial practice remains far from just. Restitution rights\nfor victims often hit a wall of legal uncertainty. In many court\nrulings, the provision of restitution is frequently accompanied by the\noption of substitute imprisonment, lasting only about 2-3 months to a\nmaximum of 1 year, as noted in research by I Kadek Sudiarsana regarding\nrestitution fulfilment in Kupang, NTT.<\/p>\n
Consequently, perpetrators tend to choose additional imprisonment\nrather than paying financial compensation, ultimately leaving victims\nwithout any financial recovery. This failure in execution is further\nworsened by the absence of asset forfeiture powers during the early\nstages of investigation. Ironically, current law enforcement often\nsettles for apprehending low-level intermediaries with weak economic\npower, while the intellectual actors and corporate distributors continue\nto evade the law.<\/p>\n
The weakness of this handling system has direct implications for the\nphysical and psychological safety of survivors. Many trafficking victims\nare simply sent home without receiving proper care in safe houses or\nassistance with social and economic reintegration, making them highly\nvulnerable to re-victimisation. Current handling also frequently ignores\nthe suffering of survivors, such as the case of Mariance Kabu, who\nsuffered severe physical and psychological trauma resulting in\ndisability, yet faced neglect or even negative stigma from her own\ncommunity. The state must not allow survivors to struggle alone amidst\nthe shadows of trauma and social alienation.<\/p>\n
Victims are Subjects, Not Objects<\/p>\n
This is the critical point that must be academically asserted: the\nparadigm for handling human trafficking must no longer stop at the logic\nof repression against perpetrators, but must shift decisively towards a\nvictim-centered approach. Modern victimology teaches that victims are\nnot merely pieces of evidence or functional witnesses for the state\u2019s\nproof, but legal subjects with substantive rights to recovery.<\/p>\n
The relevant legal maxim here is \u2018restitutio in integrum\u2019\u2014restoration\nto the original state\u2014a principle asserting that criminal justice is\nincomplete without restorative justice for the victim.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/urgent-need-for-human-trafficking-law-reform-addressing-new-modus-operandi-and-ensuring-victim-justice-1785711180", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }