{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020124951622712446, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0018798031735500636, 'mean_word_length': 4.689839572192513, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Legal Settlement of Domestic Criminal Violence From a Substantive Justice Perspective

. The most obvious shift in the order of interactions and values in social interactions after the reform era is the issue of appropriateness and appropriateness of values and interactions in family-household (private-domestic) affairs. However, after the reform era, the values and interactions in a family or household have been distorted by the state authorities into public affair and are no longer a private (domestic) affair. The fundamental problem of law enforcement lies in the conception of harmonizing the relationship of values. In the context of law enforcement related to domestic violence, the harmonization of the values that form the basis of the interaction system and the values that underlie a household with the values established in the formal state law, namely Law No. 23 of 2004 concerning the Elimination of Domestic Violence. The basic problem that occurs is the misalignment of the implementation of legal politics, the values that are the basis of household building as stated in the PKDRT Law, do not originate from religious moral values. Meanwhile, all Indonesian citizens must be religious and believe in God Almighty.


INTRODUCTION
The most obvious shift in the order of interaction and values in social interactions after the reform era is the issue of appropriateness and appropriateness of values and interactions in family-household (private-domestic) affairs. Prior to the reform era, values and interactions between and internally family members found their justification based on the values of propriety and decency that live and develop inherently in the social order in which a family lives. How the pattern of relationships and interactions between and internal family members is built does not use the perspective of the State through its formal law. But it is built on the basis of awareness of domestic values that come from values that are inherited from generation to generation from their ancestors. What is the INCLAR pattern of the relationship between husband and wife, mother and father with children, daughter-in-law with in-laws, with relatives and so on.There is hardly any difference in perception and meaning between them related to the values and interactions between them. When there is a dispute, they already have a standard mechanism and standard values to resolve it. And the settlement process does not take long and the results are sure to be obeyed by all those involved in the dispute.
However, after the reform era, the values and interactions in a family or household have been distorted by the state authorities into a public affair and no longer a private (domestic) affair. Disputes between husband and wife, children and other family members by the State are seen as public problems and not merely private problems. For example, violence that is the result of disputes between family members is seen by the state as a public problem which must therefore be punished by public law. These rules then become guidelines or benchmarks for behavior or attitudes that are considered appropriate, or should be. The behavior or attitude of the act aims to create, maintain and maintain peace. This is a concrete form of conceptual law enforcement. The integrity of a family with all the values and interactions that are held firmly by all family members is not a major consideration and basis for the State in solving private problems. (hereinafter referred to as the PKDRT Law). Law enforcement as a process is essentially an application of discretion that involves making decisions that are not strictly regulated by the rule of law, but have an element of personal judgment. By quoting Roscoe Pound's opinion, La Vafvre states that in essence discretion lies between law and morals. [

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In the book Building Legal Politics Upholding the Constitution , Mahfud explains that legal politics that directs efforts to improve legal materials with good and strict formats and instruments is not in line with the reality of law enforcement in the judiciary. [3] So, the problem in national legal politics does not lie in the direction of the material but lies in its enforcement by the apparatus. Mahfud's opinion further emphasizes that to apply every law (law), no formal form is needed but it is enough with the values of justice and benefits that exist in society. The values that live in society must be the substance of the formal law of the state. The problem of how to incorporate these values into the formal law of the state is through what is known as legal politics. So in this context, massive awareness is needed for the community to be actively involved in fighting for the values of justice in society so that they become the spirit and soul of the values of justice in the formal law of the state.
Understanding the law is a tangible manifestation of understanding the law. There are 3 aspects of legal politics in a law, namely philosophy, theory, and normative. [4] 2. Meaning and Positioning of Legal Politics in Legislation from the Philosophy aspect: Ontology: the essence of laws and regulations is a political product of the authorities, which is intended to regulate certain things so as to realize justice, certainty, and benefit for the community.
Epistemology: Legislation is a concrete law and directly binding.
Axiology: the product of legislation has the aim of creating an orderly society and to ensure fair legal certainty.

Meaning and Positioning of Legal Politics in Legislation from the Theory aspect:
Legislation must be able to explore the values of justice as a source of law in ensuring fair legal certainty.
If it is associated with laws and regulations, legislation is a political product of the state authorities. So that in the legislation, legal politics has a very basic meaning that will determine the direction of the enactment of a law product. In positioning, the product of legislation is a guideline, procedure for acting, behaving, regarding a certain matter that it regulates. This particular thing is a limiting meaning so that the laws and regulations do not regulate things beyond what is desired by the regulation. Meaning in laws and regulations that limit the authority of a statutory product provides a concrete definition of everything it regulates (eg sanctions, implementation procedures, authority INCLAR of related bodies or institutions, validity period, etc.). Normative in laws and regulations can be seen from obedience and adherence to principles. Principles are the basis and guidelines that will provide value for a legal product. Scope: 1. State policy (official) regarding the law that will be enforced or not enforced in achieving state goals.
2. Political, economic, social, cultural background for the birth of legal products (law as a political product).

Empirical law enforcement.
As a political product, laws and regulations are interrelated laws and provide a causal relationship. The following is the interdependence of legal politics in theory: Law is the determinant of politics, namely political activities are regulated by and must be subject to law (rule of law). Political determinants of law, namely the crystallization of political will to interact and compete with each other. Politics and law as a sub-system of society, which is balanced on the one hand, law is a political product, once there is law, all political activities are subject to law. [5] 4. Meaning and Positioning of Legal Politics in Legislation from the Normative Aspect: Legislation is a guarantee of justice and legal certainty to provide benefits to the community. According to Satjipto Raharjo: legal politics as an activity of choosing and the method to be used to achieve a social goal with certain laws in society whose scope includes: 1. What are the goals to be achieved through the existing system.
2. What methods and which ones are considered the best to be used in achieving these goals.
3. When and in what manner the law needs to be changed. 4. Can a standard and established pattern be formulated to assist in deciding the process of selecting goals and ways to achieve these goals properly?
Fair legal certainty in laws and regulations is not only seen from the perspective of positive law which regulates the procedures for its implementation, but also must and must contain the right and correct legal basis and reasons ( phenomenon ). Fair legal certainty in laws and regulations must also be seen from the perspective of the INCLAR values of justice and truth that exist and live in society ( nomena) . Laws and regulations in a theoretical perspective are laws that describe their behavior. [6] Which behavior is not only understood by the substance itself, but also must be understood by the community. Legislation as behavior, the substance of which must contain the overall ascriptive values of law enforcement which manifests into its integrity. Legislation as a reflection of behavior must and must be an open guideline for the way of life of its people.
Related to the problems in this paper, the value that lives in society related to the household is a sacred bond that is personal, so that each household has a " veto right " to make rules, solve problems, and run the household. However, when there is an act in the household that results in a victim and a violation of the rules made by the state, the state law must enter into the scope of the household's privacy. In the PKDRT Law, it has been rigidly explained that every action in the household that is considered a criminal act, and causes the perpetrator to be obedient and subject to state law.

Legal Politics in Criminal Acts of Domestic Violence According to the Model of the Criminal Justice System.
Sociologically, the household is defined as a small entity that is not independent, but in the modern context the household is a small independent entity. At the traditional level, a household is a small entity that is highly dependent on the local social The model of dispute resolution that is settled by family and relatives themselves which has been applied for generations by the people in Indonesia, was seen by John Griffith as a judicial model with the name Family Model. In this family model, the basic principle is that the social system of society in a country is equated with the family system. Every problem that arises in the society of the State must be resolved by using the basic values that live and develop in that society. In the context of domestic violence crimes, according to this model the solution does not always use the formal state law with a judicial system made by the state, which always ends up right and wrong, and the sanctions are in the form of corporal punishment. According to this family model, a dispute resolution system that always aims to find wrong and right will be far from the principle of restorative justice. [8]. In such a settlement process, the focus is not on finding out who is wrong and who is right, but rather on the goal of reuniting the different views that are the cause of domestic violence. Violence is seen as a result that

CRIME CONTROL MODEL.
This justice system model focuses on a judicial model that aims to prevent crime.
Intended as a model that can prevent crime, of course in this model it prioritizes results over process. In the sense that the process is carried out in an informal way while still based on the applicable laws and regulations. The main objective of this judicial model is to achieve substantial justice. [4] According to Bibas [9], crime-control model is based on the need to convict the guilty and do so accurately without delay, and at the same breath ensure efficiency.
Law enforcers have a duty to avoid to be seen going against the law, since they too cannot escape scrutiny from the legal representatives of the victims. It is aimed at reducing incidence of crime within the society without considering or curtailing accused individual's rights. It increases the prosecutorial powers of law enforcement agencies and believes that crime can be reduced by arresting and punishing the offender. Jaishankar explains the crime control model as the suppression of criminal activities without any delays, it allows for extrajudicial processes so long as the offender is convicted. In this model, societal comfort overrides individual rights and, therefore, the government is obliged to do anything to protect the society. The failure of the law enforcement agencies to eliminate the occurrence of criminal conducts is viewed as a lapse in public order and deterioration in human freedom. [10] In order for the crime -control model to achieve its intentions, efficiency must be paramount within the criminal justice system. The system should have the capacity to apprehend, try, convict and dispose of criminal of offenders. Unlike the due process model, the crime control model is swift, since it works prior to an actual crime; [11] the government's burden of proof is minimal compared to other models. [12] This judicial model uses the following assumptions:

Legality ( not ex post facto law ).
The principle used in the crime control model of the justice system is based on the principle of legality. The principle which always emphasizes the principle that an act can only be punished if it has been explicitly stated in the legislation as an act that can be punished. This model of the judicial system strongly opposes the principle of retroactive law ( not ex post facto law ), because it is contrary to legal certainty.

The powers of law enforcement officers are limited.
The next basic assumption in the crime control model is that the authority of law enforcement officials is limited. In the sense of law enforcement in enforcing law and justice against material acts of criminal acts of psychological violence in the household, it is very limited by the prescribed law.
3. Perpetrators are subjects who must be protected and are entitled to an honest and fair trial.
The last basic assumption in the crime control model is that the perpetrator is a subject who is protected and is subject to an honest and fair trial. This crime control justice model places the perpetrator as a subject and not as an object, therefore any action that is deemed to be able to influence the perpetrator in providing information in the trial process cannot be justified. Perpetrators are given their rights, for example, have the right to get a defender, communicate with their families, practice worship according to their religion, exercise their civil rights and so on. By continuing to protect and guarantee the rights of the perpetrators during the judicial process, the judicial process carried out is truly honest and fair or impartial. In fact, the granting and guarantee of the rights of the perpetrators is a form of justice carried out in an honest and fair manner.

DUE PROCESS MODELS.
The 3. Equality before the law.
The law is applied equally and fairy. No one is above the law. Equality before the law means that all human beings have the right to be treated equally before the law. They are also entitled to the equal protection of the law, which means all people have the right to be treated fairly and not be discriminated against because of their race, colour, gender, language, religion, political beliefs, status or any other unlawful reason. This concept was outlined by Professor A.V. Dicey who described the rule of law.
i. It means . . . the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the government.
Englishmen are ruled by the law, and by the law alone; a man may be punished for a breach of law, but he can be punished for nothing else.
ii. It means equality before the law, or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts; the 'rule of law' in this case excludes the idea of any exemption of officials or others from the duty of obedience to the law which governs other citizens or from the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.
iii. With us the law of the constitution, the rules which in foreign countries naturally form part of a constitutional code, are not the source but the consequence of the rights of individuals, as defined and enforced by the courts; . . . the principles of private law have . . . by the action of the courts and Parliament so extended as to determine the position of the Crown and its servants; thus the constitution is the result of the ordinary law of the land. [13] The due process model focuses on having a just and fair criminal justice system for all and a system that does not infringe upon constitutional rights. Further, this model would argue that the system should be more like an 'obstacle course,' rather than an 'assembly line.' The protection of individual rights and freedoms is of utmost importance and has often be aligned more with a liberal perspective. [14] INCLAR In Due Process Model, This model applies the principle of equality before the law, in the sense that the judicial process carried out always emphasizes the treatment of each stage of the judicial process equally and equally for perpetrators, victims, regardless of socio-economic background, traditional culture, ethnicity, religion, and race. Equal treatment before the law in this Due Process Model also emphasizes the process of finding and determining the evidence that is the basis for deciding the perpetrator's guilt, must be carried out based on the applicable formal legal provisions. Through this model, it is hoped that the judge can explore and find evidence of the violence experienced by the victim. So that although psychological violence often does not leave a mark, it is possible for judges to reveal the truth through a model of evidence according to the existing judicial system.