Published Paper Details:

Street crime ranging from robbery, motorbike theft, drug-related offenses, to assault remains one of the most pressing challenges to public security in Indonesia. Although regulated under the Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP) and related statutes, these provisions are too general and do not classify street crime as a distinct category, often leading to fragmented enforcement and weak institutional coordination. Current criminal policy still relies heavily on punitive measures such as arrests and imprisonment. The objective of this study is to critically analyze the weaknesses in Indonesia's criminal policy for combating street crime and to propose a reconstruction through an integrated approach that harmonizes preventive, repressive, and restorative strategies. The research adopts a normative juridical methodology, drawing on primary legal materials such as the 1945 Constitution, the KUHP, Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Police, and relevant Police Regulations (Perkap), complemented by secondary sources including scholarly writings, journal articles, and comparative studies. The findings reveal that Indonesia's criminal policy is hindered by several structural weaknesses: (1) an absence of a holistic, integrated framework; (2) overemphasis on punitive measures at the expense of prevention; (3) inadequate legal adaptation to emerging crimes; (4) corruption and weak professionalism in law enforcement; and (5) poor coordination between central and local governments. These weaknesses are further compounded by cultural and community perceptions that often obstruct restorative justice initiatives, leaving repressive enforcement as the dominant mechanism. The study concludes that Indonesia's criminal policy remains unbalanced and insufficient in addressing the root causes and impacts of street crime. To move forward, reconstruction is urgently required through the adoption of an integrated approach that combines penal and non-penal instruments, strengthens institutional coordination, expands preventive measures, and incorporates restorative justice. As a recommendation, the research suggests: (1) clearer legal frameworks that explicitly regulate street crime and integrate preventive measures; (2) enhanced resources, training, and ethical standards for law enforcement officers; (3) stronger collaboration between central and local governments in designing community-based crime prevention programs; and (4) systematic public education to foster acceptance of restorative justice.