Discrepancy between policy and practice: a case study on hegemony within an Indonesian juvenile correctional center (LPKA)

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
William Maxey , Zainal Arifin , Hari Harjanto Setiawan , Sri Setiawati , Rudi Febriamansyah
{"title":"Discrepancy between policy and practice: a case study on hegemony within an Indonesian juvenile correctional center (LPKA)","authors":"William Maxey ,&nbsp;Zainal Arifin ,&nbsp;Hari Harjanto Setiawan ,&nbsp;Sri Setiawati ,&nbsp;Rudi Febriamansyah","doi":"10.1016/j.childyouth.2025.108469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Indonesia shifted towards a more holistic approach to incarceration emphasizing diversion and rehabilitation with the enactment of Law No. 11 of 2012 on the Juvenile Justice System. Despite the policy shift, this case study uncovers examples of systemic hegemonic practices that remain within a juvenile correctional center as it fails to provide access to justice for incarcerated youth in Indonesia. Data were collected over four months within one of Indonesia’s juvenile correctional centers (Lembaga Pembinaan Khusus Anak, LPKA). Participant observation and ethnographic interviews were conducted with correctional officers (N = 10) and incarcerated male youths (N = 19, aged 14–18), while eight of these nineteen youth participants provided further data for in-depth life stories. The case study findings show Indonesia exerts hegemonic control on three distinct levels, national, institutional, and individual. Hegemony is maintained through four major domains: control of space, a regime of punishment, shaping discourse, and rule-breaking. Hegemony counteracts the goals of the juvenile justice system, rendering the system less effective. This research contributes to the development of new knowledge about systemic hegemonic practices in places which incarcerate youth. The authors suggest Indonesia align its practices with the stated goals of the juvenile justice system and provide specific training for correctional officers based on the newly instituted laws.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48428,"journal":{"name":"Children and Youth Services Review","volume":"177 ","pages":"Article 108469"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Children and Youth Services Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740925003524","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Indonesia shifted towards a more holistic approach to incarceration emphasizing diversion and rehabilitation with the enactment of Law No. 11 of 2012 on the Juvenile Justice System. Despite the policy shift, this case study uncovers examples of systemic hegemonic practices that remain within a juvenile correctional center as it fails to provide access to justice for incarcerated youth in Indonesia. Data were collected over four months within one of Indonesia’s juvenile correctional centers (Lembaga Pembinaan Khusus Anak, LPKA). Participant observation and ethnographic interviews were conducted with correctional officers (N = 10) and incarcerated male youths (N = 19, aged 14–18), while eight of these nineteen youth participants provided further data for in-depth life stories. The case study findings show Indonesia exerts hegemonic control on three distinct levels, national, institutional, and individual. Hegemony is maintained through four major domains: control of space, a regime of punishment, shaping discourse, and rule-breaking. Hegemony counteracts the goals of the juvenile justice system, rendering the system less effective. This research contributes to the development of new knowledge about systemic hegemonic practices in places which incarcerate youth. The authors suggest Indonesia align its practices with the stated goals of the juvenile justice system and provide specific training for correctional officers based on the newly instituted laws.
政策与实践的差异:以印尼一所少管所为例
印度尼西亚颁布了关于少年司法制度的2012年第11号法律,对监禁采取了更全面的做法,强调转移和改造。尽管政策发生了转变,但本案例研究揭示了仍存在于印尼青少年矫正中心的系统性霸权做法,因为该中心未能为被监禁的青少年提供诉诸司法的机会。数据是在印度尼西亚的一个少年惩教中心(Lembaga Pembinaan Khusus Anak, LPKA)收集的,历时四个月。研究人员对10名狱警和19名14-18岁的在押男性青少年进行了参与者观察和民族志访谈,其中8名青少年参与者提供了深入的生活故事数据。案例研究结果表明,印度尼西亚在国家、机构和个人三个不同的层面上施加霸权控制。霸权是通过四个主要领域维持的:空间控制、惩罚制度、塑造话语和打破规则。霸权主义抵消了少年司法制度的目标,使该制度的有效性降低。这项研究有助于发展关于监禁青少年的地方的系统性霸权实践的新知识。作者建议印度尼西亚将其做法与少年司法系统的既定目标保持一致,并根据新制定的法律为惩教人员提供具体培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.10%
发文量
303
期刊介绍: Children and Youth Services Review is an interdisciplinary forum for critical scholarship regarding service programs for children and youth. The journal will publish full-length articles, current research and policy notes, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信