From Forced Confessions to Digital Coercion: Rethinking the Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Trials in Indonesia

Ramdhan Kasim

doi:10.23969/litigasi.v26i2.25584

Authors

Ramdhan Kasim Universitas Gorontalo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23969/litigasi.v26i2.25584

Keywords:

Digital Coercion, Exclusionary Rule, Evidentiary Doctrine, Fair Trial

Abstract

The Indonesian criminal justice system still accepts evidence obtained through coercion, either physical or digital, because there is no principle-based exclusion framework and the courts don't have enough control. This absence of normative guidance violates both the constitutional assurance of due process and the enforceable obligations under international human rights law. The objective of this research is to examine Indonesia's evidentiary doctrine and formulate a strategy for the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence from a rights-based standpoint. This research utilizes a normative juridical methodology, incorporating literature reviews, comparative law, and statutory analysis. The findings indicate that Indonesian courts are grossly unprepared to address modern forms of coercion, including those facilitated by algorithmic manipulation and digital surveillance. You can see where Indonesia is falling short by looking at how the US, Germany, and the European Court of Human Rights have done things in the past. This study introduces digital coercion as a novel analytical category and contends that evidence obtained through digital means undermines the legitimacy of adjudication and the voluntariness of the process. The study's prescriptive contribution advocates for the establishment of pre-trial evidentiary hearings, the integration of a definitive exclusionary rule into KUHAP, and the formulation of procedural safeguards for digital evidence. This study offers a robust foundation for reevaluating Indonesia's evidence doctrine in consideration of the ethical dilemmas presented by contemporary criminal justice and in accordance with international standards.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Allen, J. (2021). Rethinking the Relationship Between Reverse Burdens and the Presumption of Innocence. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 25(2), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211002285

Aprilianda, N., Kadir, N. A., Bagaskoro, L. R., & Yuliani, A. A. (2024). Strengthening the Position of Child Victims as Witnesses Through Video Recordings in Sexual Violence Crimes (a Comparison Between Indonesia and Malaysia). Brawijaya Law Journal, 11(2), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.blj.2024.011.02.02

Arifin, F., Maarif, I., A, R. K., & Fadlilah, M. N. (2024). Resolving Village Head Election Disputes: Legal Pathways in State Administrative Courts. Nurani: Jurnal Kajian Syari’ah Dan Masyarakat, 24(2), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.19109/nurani.v24i2.23116

Arifin, F., Suryana, C., Maarif, I., Bahri, R. A., & Murbani, A. W. (2025). Designing an AI-Driven Legislation Framework to Improve Indonesia’s Law-Making Transparency and Public Participation. Yustisia, 14(2), 152–169. https://doi.org/10.20961/yustisia.v14i2.98092

Barlian, A. E. A., Latipulhayat, A., Rusmiati, E., Wulandari, W., & Sukma, A. N. A. (2025). Electronic Criminal Justice in Indonesia: Challenges and the Future Measures. Jambura Law Review, 7(1), 243–274.

Barnes, B., Myers, B., Pond, R., & Meyer, K. (2024). The Influence of False Evidence Ploy Variants on Perceptions of Coercion and Deception. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 24(4), 500–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2023.2178992

Bell, M. C. (2019). The Community in Criminal Justice: Subordination, Consumption, Resistance, and Transformation. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 16(1), 197–220. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X1900016X

Biasiotti, M. A., Cannataci, J. A., Mifsud Bonnici, J. P., & Turchi, F. (2018). Introduction: Opportunities and Challenges for Electronic Evidence. In M. A. Biasiotti, J. P. Mifsud Bonnici, J. Cannataci, & F. Turchi (Eds.), Handling and Exchanging Electronic Evidence Across Europe (Vol. 39, pp. 3–12). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74872-6_1

Cammack, M. E. (2013). The United States: The Rise and Fall of the Constitutional Exclusionary Rule. In S. C. Thaman (Ed.), Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law (Vol. 20, pp. 3–32). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_1

Capodivacca, S., & Giacomini, G. (2024). Discipline and Power in the Digital Age: Critical Reflections from Foucault’s Thought. Foucault Studies, 36(1), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.22439/fs.i36.7215

Douglas-Jones Kc, B., Bunting, D., Mason, P., & Newton, B. (Eds.). (2023). Human Rights in Criminal Law. Bloomsbury Professional. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781526519542

Espósito, C. (2023). Human Rights. In C. Espósito & K. Parlett (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to the International Court of Justice (1st ed., pp. 486–513). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766241.027

Fernando, Z. J., Arifin, F., Sunggara, M. A., & Kusumah, F. (2025). Transnational Environmental Crime in the Context of International Criminal Law and Victim-Centered Environmental Justice. Lampung Journal of International Law, 7(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.25041/lajil.v7i1.4338

Frankfurt, H. G. (2015). Coercion and Moral Responsibility. Essays on Freedom of Action (Routledge Revivals).

Goltz, S. M. (2020). On Power and Freedom: Extending the Definition of Coercion. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 43(1), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-019-00240-z

González Pinto, L. (2022). The United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture: The Effects of Preventive Action. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 14(1), 134–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huac018

Heyns, C., Rueda, C., & Du Plessis, D. (2020). Torture and Ill Treatment: The United Nations Human Rights Committee. In M. D. Evans & J. Modvig (Eds.), Research Handbook on Torture. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788113960.00011

Hillier, T., & Dingwall, G. (2021). Criminal Justice and the Pursuit of the Truth. Bristol University Press.

Holmström, L. (2003). Concluding Observations of the Un Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Eighth to Twenty-Seventh Sessions (1993-2001) (1st ed). BRILL.

Holt, G. A., & Palmer, M. A. (2024). Individual Attitudes Toward Coerced Confessions Change Perception of Confession Evidence: Why Jurors May Accept or Reject Poor-Quality Confessions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 31(6), 997–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2023.2242454

Hufron, H., Fikri, S., Hadi, S., Shulga, I., & Wibowo, A. S. (2024). Digital Platform Power Play: Indonesian and European Union Law Perspective. Lex Scientia Law Review, 8(2), 707–742. https://doi.org/10.15294/lslr.v8i2.13669

Irwansyah, I. (2020). Penelitian Hukum: Pilihan Metode & Praktik Penulisan Artikel. Mirra Buana Media.

Ismail, D. E., Nggilu, N. M., & Puluhulawa, I. (2025). Metode Penelitian Hukum: Teori, Aplikasi, dan Inovasi Dalam Penelitian Hukum (T. O. N. Daud, Ed.). Ruang Karya.

Juyal, R. (2023). Preserving Personal Autonomy: Exploring the Importance of Privacy Rights, Their Impact on Society, and Threats to Privacy in the Digital Age. In C. Chavadi & D. Thangam (Eds.), Advances in Social Networking and Online Communities (pp. 226–235). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-7450-1.ch015

Kremens, K., & Jasiński, W. (2021). Editorial of Dossier “Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Process. Between the Establishment of the Truth, Human Rights and the Efficiency of Proceedings.” Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 7(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i1.537

Laputigar, R., Suhadi, S., & Rodiyah, R. (2024). Integrating Due Process Into The Enforcement Framework of Criminal Law Politics. IJCLS (Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law Studies), 9(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.15294/ijcls.v9i1.50293

Mansour Fallah, S. (2020). The Admissibility of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence Before International Courts and Tribunals. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 19(2), 147–176. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341420

Martenet, V. (2024). Shaping Rights Through European Consensus or Trend. German Law Journal, 25(9), 1436–1471. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2024.40

Medina, V. (2024). The Incompatibility of Rawls’s Justice as Fairness and His Just War Approach. Ratio Juris, 37(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12397

Meernik, J., & King, K. (2021). The Fairness of International Justice. International Criminal Law Review, 21(6), 1167–1189. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10103

Meyerson, D., & Mackenzie, C. (2018). Procedural Justice and the Law. Philosophy Compass, 13(12), e12548. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12548

Pangaribuan, A. (2025). Navigating an Authoritarian Landscape: Criminal Procedure and Defence Lawyers in Indonesia. Australian Journal of Asian Law, 25(2), 63–84.

Pollard, M. (2020). The Use of Information Obtained by Torture or Other Ill-Treatment. In M. D. Evans & J. Modvig (Eds.), Research Handbook on Torture. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788113960.00019

Prayudi, Y., Ashari, A., & Priyambodo, T. K. (2020). The Framework to Support the Digital Evidence Handling: A Case Study of Procedures for the Management of Evidence in Indonesia. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 22(3), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.4018/JCIT.2020070104

Putra, Y. S., Pujiyono, P., Rochaeti, N., & Fernando, Z. J. (2024). EIT Law at the Crossroads: Exploring Legal Dilemmas, Freedom of Expression, and Human Rights. Pakistan Journal of Criminology, 16.3, 1315–1332. https://doi.org/10.62271/pjc.16.3.1315.1332

Richardson, M. (2021). Unlawfully Obtained Evidence: Follow the Court of Justice of the European Union if You Please. EC Tax Review, 30(Issue 5/6), 262–269. https://doi.org/10.54648/ECTA2021027

Riyadi, E. (2024). Institutionalization of Human Rights Standards in Indonesia. In A. Tømte & E. Riyadi, International Human Rights and Local Courts (1st ed., pp. 73–91). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003431350-5

Rundle, K. (2016). ‘Fuller’s Internal Morality of Law.’ Philosophy Compass, 11(9), 499–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12338

Sales, P. (2024). Constitutional Values in the Common Law of Obligations. The Cambridge Law Journal, 83(1), 132–157. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197324000011

Saputra, R., Setiodjati, J. P., & Barkhuizen, J. (2023). Under-Legislation in Electronic Trials and Renewing Criminal Law Enforcement in Indonesia (comparison with United States). Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies, 8(1), 243–288. https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v8i1.67632

Saratov State Law Academy, & Smushkin, A. B. (2023). Digital Transformation of the Investigation Process as an Objective Reality. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 14(1), 90–107. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2023.106

Sidharta, N. (2018). Laws of Ratification of an International Treaty in Indonesian Laws Hierarchy. Constitutional Review, 3(2), 171. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev322

Solodov, D., & Solodov, I. (2020). Legal Safeguards Against Involuntary Criminal Confessions in Poland and Russia. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 6(3), 1661–1698. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v6i3.368

Son, F. (2024). Corruption and Discretionary Justice: Enhancing Prosecutorial Strategies in Indonesia. Hasanuddin Law Review, 10(2), 240–251.

Stoykova, R. (2021). Digital Evidence: Unaddressed Threats to Fairness and the Presumption of Innocence. Computer Law & Security Review, 42, 105575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105575

Suastuti, E., Haq, L. M. H., Harimurti, Y. W., & Yuherawan, D. S. B. (2024). Transformation and Effects of Human Rights Protection on Determining Corruption Suspects as a Pretrial Object Under the Indonesian Criminal Justice System. Lex Scientia Law Review, 8(2), 817–858. https://doi.org/10.15294/lslr.v8i2.14667

Sumardiana, B., Pujiyono, P., & Cahyaningtyas, I. (2024). Reforming Justice: Unpacking the Pre-Judication and Post-Judicate Dynamics of the Sarpin Case in Law and Practice in Indonesia. Lex Scientia Law Review, 8(2), 1089–1116. https://doi.org/10.15294/lslr.v8i2.10744

Triyana, H. J. (2022). Conscientious Objection Before the Indonesian Constitutional Court. Constitutional Review, 8(2), 323. https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev825

Turner, J. I. (2019). Regulating Interrogations and Excluding Confessions in the United States: Balancing Individual Rights and the Search for the Truth. In S. Gless & T. Richter (Eds.), Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? (Vol. 74, pp. 93–129). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12520-2_4

Walklate, S., & Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2019). The Criminalisation of Coercive Control: The Power of Law? International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 8(4), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v8i4.1205

Wąsek-Wiaderek, M. (2021). Admissibility of Statements Obtained as a Result of “Private Torture” or “Private” Inhuman Treatment as Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Emergence of a New European Standard? Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 7(1), 343. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i1.477

Weigend, T. (2019). The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A German Perspective. In S. Gless & T. Richter (Eds.), Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? (Vol. 74, pp. 61–92). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12520-2_3

Wilson-Kovacs, D. (2021). Digital Media Investigators: Challenges and Opportunities in the Use of Digital Forensics in Police Investigations in England and Wales. Policing: An International Journal, 44(4), 669–682. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-02-2021-0019

Woolley, J., Iliadis, M., & McMahon, M. (2023). Digital Coercive Control: Barriers to Victim/Survivors’ Help-Seeking and Risk Management in Victoria. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 7(3), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1332/239868021X16891521203616

Zaman, J. Q., Sholeh, A. K., Fadil, F., Salam, N., & Binti Ros Azman, A. S. (2024). The Influence of Positivism and Empirism in the Enforcement of Islamic Inheritance Law in Indonesia. Substantive Justice International Journal of Law, 7(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.56087/substantivejustice.v7i1.267