One of the peculiarities or patterns of customary law is that it prioritizes the existence of deliberation and consensus in every decision-making to resolve a dispute within the scope of customary law communities in harmony and peace. The legal consequence of the recognition in the constitution as the highest hierarchy of laws and regulations in the legal system in Indonesia results in all derivative regulations being obliged to adopt the values that have been constructed in the constitution, both at the legislative, executive, and judicial levels. In the context of the integrated criminal justice system, the value of pluralism is one of the manifestations of the lawmakers through the availability of restorative justice mechanisms in the organic laws of the Police, the Prosecutor's Office, and the Supreme Court, which in turn will be concretized through the internal regulations of the upcoming criminal justice sub-system [12] .

According to Satjipto Rahardjo in the concept of progressive legal theory, there are 9 (nine) points of thought about the purpose of law enforcement in a country, which are as follows:

The orientation of the restorative justice approach is in line with one of the policies launched by the administration of President Joko Widodo to improve the criminal and civil law system in Indonesia through the enactment of Presidential Regulation Number 18 of 2020 concerning the National Medium-Term Development Plan 2020-2024 (hereinafter abbreviated as Presidential Regulation Number 18 of 2020). Following the provisions of Article 2 paragraph (3) letter a Jo. Article 3 paragraph (1) of Presidential Regulation Number 18 of 2020, all the substance of the RPJMN functions as a guideline for Ministries/Institutions in preparing internal Strategic Plans of Ministries/Institutions. Juridically, the ideal concept in the enforcement of the law of juvenile crimes has been formulated by the lawmakers through the principles of the implementation of the juvenile criminal justice system as stipulated in Article 2 of Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System, including [14]:

a. Protection;

b. Justice;

c. Non-discrimination;

d. The best interests of the child;

e. Respect for children's opinions;

f. Child survival and growth and development;

g. Child development and guidance;

h. Proportional;

i. Deprivation of independence and criminalization as a last resort; and

j. Avoidance of retaliation.

However, the availability of these principles has not been actively accommodated by the Investigator and the Public Prosecutor in the Alex Malawi case as a benchmark or guideline in determining the feasibility of a criminal case for law enforcement efforts, including the principle of the best interests for children that tends to be ignored by the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor seems to feel afraid and difficult to explore and understand the values contained in Article 2 of Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning the Child Criminal Justice System. This phenomenon is due to the characteristics of the positivism paradigm inherent in Investigators and Public Prosecutors, such as bureaucratic, centralistic, hierarchical accountability, and command and normative system culture. The characteristics of such a work system have the potential to hinder Investigators and Public Prosecutors from pouring creativity or innovation into taking criminal law enforcement policies that require progressive legal breakthroughs that state that the law is for human beings and not human beings for the law [15] .

The efficiency of judicial resources is also one of the objects affected if the Public Prosecutor can optimize the principles of the implementation of the juvenile criminal justice system. Based on the 2023 Annual Report of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, the remaining ordinary criminal cases in 2022 at the district court level are 21,139 cases, while the number of ordinary criminal cases entered in 2023 is 117,773 cases, so the total case burden is 138,912 and has been decided as many as 117,013 and 21,899 cases must be decided in 2024. Specifically for children's cases, the remaining child criminal cases in 2022 are 876 cases, while the number of cases entered in 2023 is 5,188 cases, so the total caseload is 6,064 and has been decided as many as 5,148 and 916 cases must be decided in 2024 [16] .

The political nature of criminal law is adaptive. Adaptive in the sense will depend a lot on the goals of the country concerned. Therefore, the legal politics of a country will tend to be different from the legal politics of other countries. This is due to differences in historical, geographical, and socio-cultural backgrounds, political and economic systems, ideologies, and state goals. The politics of criminal law in the context of law enforcement of child crimes in Indonesia that are resolved through marriage need to be understood through 3 (three) main pillars, namely justice, legal certainty, and utility. These three pillars must be applied in a balanced or proportionate manner to achieve fair and humane legal goals in the juvenile criminal justice system in the future. Law enforcement must consider aspects of restorative justice that focus on recovering losses suffered by victims and rehabilitation for the perpetrators of criminal acts unless in certain circumstances there is an element of coercion or the absence of the victim's consent, then the crime must be applied to provide a deterrent effect and maintain public order and security [17] .

According to Wemmers, a restorative justice approach that prioritizes reconciliation between perpetrators and victims in cases of sexual violence may make victims feel more mentally burdened to forgive the perpetrator. Female victims can be "involved in a process that seems to prioritize help for male perpetrators," which means that this approach can strengthen the relationship of power and control. That ICJR studies show that the goal of restorative justice is restoration, not retribution. That the complainant/victim and the reported person/perpetrator should receive recovery. The victim did not obtain the goal of recovery through restorative justice in a quo case. The victim experiences new psychological problems as a result of the marriage that took place and then did not produce a healthy household. Therefore, the purpose of restorative justice has been violated when restorative justice is used to resolve criminal cases in a quo case [18] .

The concept of suffering can be observed by referring to the formulation of Article 1 number 3 of Law Number 31 of 2014 concerning Amendments to Law Number 13 of 2006 concerning the Protection of Witnesses and Victims, that the victim is a person who experiences physical, mental and/or economic suffering caused by a criminal act. Strictly speaking, the Public Prosecutor must be able to ensure that the policy options applied can meet part or all of the types of suffering of victims of criminal acts, including the perpetrators by placing penal orientation as the last option. Alternative settlements through marriage must also be ensured to be carried out by free agreement without any pressure on the victim's child, considering that potential stress results in several types of mental disorders in the victim's child, such as anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), schizophrenia, eating disorders, disruptive behaviors, dissocial disorders, and neurodevelopmental disorders [19] .

Rape or sexual intercourse is still a criminal act that must be resolved by criminal law. This does not mean that the perpetrators who are married to the victim will be acquitted as a result, as is the case when the perpetrators have agreed to peace by marrying one of the perpetrators to the victim so that the other perpetrators can be free just like that or in other words transfer responsibility for their actions to one perpetrator only [20] . To illustrate, in criminal law enforcement, the state takes full action against the perpetrators through its law enforcement agencies, which are often involved with various interests and without feeling the need to involve the victim, except in the case of complaints against law enforcement decisions [21] .

According to Barda Nawawi Arief, the current positive criminal law emphasizes the protection of victims indirectly rather than directly. This is because, according to positive criminal law, positive criminal acts are not considered a violation of the legal interests of a person, namely the victim, directly, but only as a violation of norms or legal regulations in the abstract. As a result, accountability for the victim's loss or suffering is more focused on personal responsibility [22] .

The innovation of renewing the settlement of sexual intercourse crimes against children is a policy that risks becoming a negative precedent or a loophole in the legal industry, such as marriage will be used as an effort to avoid criminal liability for perpetrators, normalize harassment and even abuse of authority by law enforcement officials. Therefore, in determining the implementation of marriage between the perpetrator and the victim, the victim of the crime must first take the legal route by making a police report that there has been an alleged criminal act of sexual intercourse with a child, which means that the victim must first enter the criminal justice system [23] .

Despite the applicability of customary law in communities such as Simbur Cahaya in South Sumatra, Megou Pak Tulang Bawang customary law in Lampung, and Malaweng customary law in South Sulawesi in a customary law society where 3 (three) types of customary law examples apply to marriage sanctions for perpetrators of sexual intercourse against the victim's child and adult victim, legal certainty must remain a priority considering that Indonesia is a country of law, However, law enforcement must not forget the benefits of the law if the perpetrator is still brought to court. Thus, the criminal justice system in Indonesia is not only seen by the public as a system that prioritizes law enforcement but also a system that prioritizes the collaboration of procedural justice, substantive justice, and utilitarian justice in criminal law enforcement [24] .

Islamic criminal law recognizes the law of qiṣāṣ-diyat, which means that the perpetrator will be punished according to his deeds (qiṣāṣ), according to the victim's sense of justice, but the act of forgiveness and peace of the victim and his family is considered preferable [25] . The perpetrator can also be sentenced to diyat, which means they must compensate for a certain amount of property owned by the victim and his family so that there is no more grudge between the two. Based on the perspective of Islamic law, marriage between the perpetrator and the victim is one of the damages in a quo case [26] . Thus, the retraction of the report is comparable to apologizing to the victim, so they are not punished for their apology. However, Imam Abu Yusuf from Abu Hanifah stated that marriage performed after adultery is a syubhat that can refuse the imposition of the limit [27] . Meanwhile, the jumhur fuqaha still views it as pure adultery that must be sanctioned by had, even if it is followed by marriage. Marriage cannot protect against sexual offenses. For those who are married, the punishment of stoning, and for those who are not, abuse and exile [28] .

In addition, there are the following reasons that can make the limit of adultery removed by the existence of peace using marriage [29]. 1. Because the perpetrator revoked his confession in a case where the confession of adultery has been proven; 2. Because the witnesses retracted their testimony before the punishment was carried out; 3. Because of the confession of adultery by one of the perpetrators of adultery or denial if both of them admit to adultery; 4. Due to the incapacity of the witnesses before and after the judge's decision; 5. Because the witness died before the stoning penalty was applied; 6. Marriage is performed between people who commit adultery, but some scholars argue that marriage after the act of adultery does not abort the punishment of had [30].

This mechanism also answers the mistakes in people's habits in understanding the concept of out-of-court settlement that has been carried out without involving the role of law enforcement officials to ensure that the process of resolving a legal problem is carried out objectively based on the law. This effort minimizes the injury to the rights and obligations of victims and perpetrators of criminal acts to be involved in the settlement of criminal acts experienced and committed [31]. However, the support of communities such as victims' families, social workers (Peksos), Correctional Centers (Bapas), and the Indonesian Child Protection Commission (KPAI) in the law enforcement process is very much needed to create an atmosphere that fosters confidence in children who are victims of sexual intercourse against children. The implementation of this study, law enforcement that only prioritizes justice and legal certainty but overrides the usefulness of the law causes other domino effects in law enforcement such as the overcapacity of Correctional Institutions (Lapas) and conveying the responsibility of perpetrators in the future to the victim to provide for their natural and mental sustenance [32].

The association among teenagers and young people today can be said to be very worrying. Not a few of them are trapped in promiscuity due to the misuse of technological facilities such as the Internet; So it is not surprising that there are many phenomena of pregnant women out of wedlock, the sophistication of technology greatly supports the existence of promiscuity that is increasingly open, so it is not surprising that there are pregnancies outside of marriage, and it is found that parents come to the Religious Court to apply for a marriage dispensation for adolescents because they must get married as soon as possible for the status of children who are in the womb as a result of the act of adultery (premarital pregnancy) [33]

Scholars differ on marrying an adulterous woman or daughter. This difference is due to the difference in views on the understanding of the sentence prohibiting marrying an adulterous woman, as mentioned in Q.S. An-Nur [34]:

Most scholars seem to be inclined to interpret it as a sin, not haram, so they allow it to marry her.

Most scholars seem to be inclined to interpret it as a sin, not haram, so they allow it to marry her. Imam Ash-Shafi'i allowed the marriage contract with her even though she was pregnant because there was no haram on the grounds of this haram. The scholars agree that a man who is an adulterer is lawful to marry an adulterous woman [35] , Thus, the marriage of a man to a woman who is pregnant by himself is valid. They are allowed to have intercourse as husband and wife should because it does not contradict the sound of Surah al-Nur verse 3.

In general, the views of fiqh scholars regarding the marriage of pregnant women due to adultery can be divided into two:

In more detail, their opinions can be grouped into six:

Ibn Hazm argued that a woman who became pregnant due to adultery could be married or married even though she had not yet given birth to a child. Ibn Hazm explained that pregnant women who should not be married are pregnant women who are divorced or left dead by their husbands. Pregnant women, apart from the result of a legal relationship, may be married because the person concerned is not in the marital bond and is not in the waiting period [41] .

The legal settlement of child sexual intercourse cases through marriage raises profound concerns regarding the enforcement of justice and child protection, especially when measured against both Islamic legal norms and international commitments such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In the case of Decision No. 6/Pid.Sus/2022/PN. Mre, the perpetrator's marriage to the minor victim was used as grounds for leniency, despite the clear mandate of Law No. 35 of 2014 on Child Protection and the Juvenile Justice System Law No. 11 of 2012, which require strict protection of minors and the prioritization of their best interests.

From an Islamic legal perspective, marriage cannot serve as a shield against the legal consequences of zina (unlawful sexual intercourse), especially when it involves coercion or exploitation. While Islamic teachings allow for qiṣāṣ and diyāt in resolving some criminal offenses, the notion of forced marriage as restitution contradicts the objectives (maqāṣid) of Islamic law—particularly the protection of dignity (ḥifẓ al-‘ird), lineage (ḥifẓ al-nasl), and the rights of children. The dominant view among fuqahā’ (jurists) rejects post-intercourse marriage as a valid justification to avoid ḥadd (punishment), highlighting that such acts remain criminally prosecutable.

In the context of SDGs, this practice violates Goal 5 (achieve gender equality and end all forms of violence against women and girls) and Goal 16 (promote peace, justice, and strong institutions). Allowing marriage to override accountability undermines the integrity of legal institutions and fails to prevent re-victimization, thus widening the justice gap for children. The analysis of the legal reasoning in this case reveals a positivistic and procedural approach that neglects restorative and transformative justice values. The prosecutor's reliance on marriage as a resolution tool demonstrates institutional hesitation in applying child-centered legal principles. Moreover, it raises the risk of setting a dangerous precedent, where marriage becomes a legal escape for perpetrators and a forced compromise for victims.

To align with both Islamic ethical frameworks and the SDGs, legal reform must include strict guidelines ensuring that marriage is never used to nullify criminal responsibility. Instead, mechanisms for rehabilitation, restitution, and genuine restorative justice—supervised by independent bodies such as the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK)—should be prioritized. These frameworks should ensure that victims receive psychological, legal, and social support, while also holding perpetrators accountable. In conclusion, the resolution of sexual crimes against children must never compromise justice, regardless of social or customary pressures. Upholding Islamic values and the SDGs demands a legal system that protects, not pardons, in the name of peace.