ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2026
The role of forensic evidence in Indonesia's criminal justice.
Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims, first, to analyse the position of forensic evidence in the criminal justice process in Indonesia; and second, to examine the extent to which forensic evidence is effectively employed as a basis of proof by judges and public prosecutors in the criminal justice process in Indonesia. This study was conducted in two stages, namely a doctrinal analysis of legal regulations in Indonesia and an empirical study through the collection of court decisions betwen January 2023 and December 2024 from four district courts representing three regions of Indonesia. The role of forensic evidence in Indonesian criminal procedure remains problematic owing to the absence of explicit regulation. At present, it is not formally recognised as a distinct evidentiary category under the Criminal Procedure Code, but rather subsumed under expert testimony, documentary evidence, or indications as stipulated in Article 184. This ambiguity diminishes the attention given by law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges to the probative value of forensic science. Data from four district courts between January 2023 and December 2024 show that there are five categories of cases with the highest percentages decided on the basis of forensic evidence, namely narcotics offences (96.26%), assault (94.61%), firearms and sharp weapons offences (92.08%), electronic information and transactions offences (72.63%), and corruption (59.38%). It is therefore recommended that forensic evidence be specifically classified as an independent category of evidence within Indonesian criminal procedural law, in order to strengthen objectivity, enhance fairness, and ensure a more reliable criminal justice system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.