Ad hoc judges have been introduced in human rights and corruption courts, but efforts to reform the criminal justice system in the country have so far proved unconvincing, an expert says.

Noted lawyer Luhut MP Pangaribuan said in his thesis that ad hoc judges as an instrument to build public trust within the concept of lay judges were not a model that honored the legitimate expectations of justice seekers.

He said the existing ad hoc judges did not follow the lead of lay judges, who worked in a collegial panel, as in the law mixed-bench tradition, or independently, as in the common law tradition.

The Japanese criminal court system, for example, has introduced a mixed court in which judges no longer hold the monopoly to determine punishment, while the public may participate in and contribute to a fairer court hearing.

Luhut proposed that ad hoc judges be given bigger roles and authority in accordance with the concept of lay judges. He also suggested that court hearings be split into two stages: fact-finding and punishment.

The thesis, titled "Lay judges in criminal courts: A theoretical study of the Indonesian criminal justice system", earned Luhut a doctorate from the University of Indonesia on Feb. 14.