This research aims to examine the legal limitations in the application of excessive self-defense (noodweerexces) and its implications for criminal liability in the Indonesian criminal law system. The urgency of this study stems from inconsistencies in judicial practice regarding the interpretation of reasonable limits in self-defense cases, creating legal uncertainty and potential injustice. This research employs a normative juridical method examining legal regulations, theories, principles, and court decisions related to justification and pardon in Indonesian criminal law. The findings indicate that the application of excessive self-defense requires particular attention to avoid violating fundamental principles of justice, with both objective and subjective evaluations necessary to ensure fair law enforcement. The study reveals that variations in judicial decisions necessitate clearer guidelines to ensure legal certainty, while psychological factors of perpetrators significantly influence considerations in noodweerexces assessments. This research contributes new insights by specifically integrating the analysis of objective legal standards with subjective psychological states in criminal liability determination, filling the gap left by previous studies that examined these aspects separately. The study recommends the development of standardized judicial guidelines through Supreme Court circular letters (SEMA) and mandatory training for judges on psychological assessment in self-defense cases, as well as the incorporation of forensic psychology experts in the judicial process for noodweerexces cases.

This study aims to determine the application of Restorative justice in the form of a judge's pardon for the crime of theft committed by seniors over 70 years of age. The research carried out in this study is empirical juridical research, which is carried out directly in the field to find out the real problems that occur, and then it will be connected with the applicable laws and regulations and existing legal theories. The results of the study show that the application of a new Restorative justice in the form of a judge's apology to the perpetrators who are 70 years old because they are no longer productive is deemed ineffective if imprisoned and also that the country of Indonesia is a country that has eastern customs, which means that the culture of the Indonesian state is making a decision by deliberation to reach a consensus or in other words, Restorative justice provides an opportunity for the perpetrator to become a better person so that he can organize his future life for the better, rather than having to prioritize a retributive justice system that prioritizes the imposition of law on the physical perpetrator by confining him in in detention/prison. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui Penerapan Restorative justice Dalam Bentuk Permaafan Hakim Dalam Tindak Pidana Pencurian Yang Dilakukan Oleh Lansia Diatas 70 Tahun. Penelitian yang dilakukan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian Yuridis empiris yang dilakukan secara langsung di lapangan untuk mengetahui permasalahan yang sebenarnya terjadi, kemudian akan dihubungkan dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku dan teori hukum yang ada. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penerapan baru sebuah Restorative justice dalam bentuk permaafan hakim kepada para pelaku yang berusia 70 tahun karena diusia yang sudah tidak produktif dirasa tidak efektive jika dimasukan di dalam penjara dan juga negara Indonesia merupakan negara yang memiliki adat ketimuran yang artinya budaya negara Indonesia adalah mengambil sebuah keputusan dengan musyawarat untuk mufakat atau dalam kata lain dari Restorative justice memberikan kesempatan kepada pelaku untuk menjadi sosok yang lebih baik agar dapat menata kehidupan kedepannya menjadi lebih baik,  dibandingkan harus mengedepankan system retributive justice yang lebih mengedepankan penjatuhan hukum terhadap fisik pelaku dengan mengurungnya di dalam tahanan/penjara.