INDONESIAN LAW COURT PREFERENCE, better be anglo saxon or stay the same?

As long as we know, Indonesian law-court has been preferred to the continental/ civil law system until now. This system adopted the colonial's that occupied Indonesia for about 350 years.

The Continental sys. has 3 (three) variables for judgment over the accused. There are The Judge, The Protector, and The Prosecutor. Meanwhile, The Anglo/ Common Law sys. has The Judge, The Protector, The Prosecutor, and The Jury. So, there are 4 (four) variables for this sys. In Latin phrase, we can describe this, "quot capita, tot scientiae", that means, "many head, more wise".

The law-court can be unhumanity, too objective and less subjective consideration. These days we can see, the uncredible & unresponsible judgment, almost happened at law-court of whole part of Indonesian, as a country.

How could it happen?

We define this preference at step, when the prosecutor has received The Lawsuit from The Scrutineer/ Close Examination (Police), and had been clarified obviously.

Officially, the prosecutor, the judge, and the protector/ advocate, "fight" on the lawsuit for "winning". The prosecutor fights for maximizing verdict & the protector/ advocate fights for minimizing or makes it zero. In the same "arena", we can see the judge will be leader, for running the court, within having authorization for making a convict.

Who does do the consideration to convict the accused? Although the authorization of judgment is the same both of common law court and civil law court, taken by the judge, there are one crucial step missed from civil law. That is only in common law court system.

We can see clearly, that the consideration of the judge cannot replace the verdict from The Jury, that are going  to be forwarded to judge for doing the convict. However the jury's verdict, based on their consideration, can involve the subjective inside the objective lawsuit, that are full of evidence, proof, witness, specialist witnesses, and other software of law-court. Not like or dislike matters, but humanity inside the lawsuit be respected.

There is no verdict in civil law court as in common law; only exception/ objection from the accused, that has less power, then the jury's consideration in verdict.

The jury is more independent than the only member of judge in considering over defense and prosecution, to be a convict over the accused. Although happening "the dark law-court", we see that money for 3 (three) variables in civil law, is no compare to covering 4 (four) variables. It needs a lot of money to buy the integrated humanity of the people membership the jury.

Specification for jury must be clarified as representative of moral movement in Indonesia, like religious people, the academical, a person of culture, and the capable others. It absolutely demands a great goodwill from all Indonesian to change from civil law court to common law court.

The better law court are going to pay it forward if we makes the law for humanity, not sacrify humanity for law.