criminal-law comparative-law
Is there any &quot;delik aduan&quot; like laws in the west?
<p>In Indonesia there are laws called "delik aduan" that define acts as crimes only if someone files a complaint.</p>

<p>These are like civil laws in that someone has to file a complaint, but they are like crimes ("pidana") in that the penalties include incarceration.</p>

<p>One such law is defamation: It's only a crime if someone that feels hurt by some speech reports it and sues.  Otherwise it's not a crime.  I.e., law enforcement will not search for or prosecute defamatory speech.</p>

<p>Another such law is adultery: It's only a crime if someone "complains" and reports it to cops. Otherwise it's not.</p>

<p>Basically, someone else, not the state can decide that this is a crime. Delik aduan laws are quite clear in that they require a private-party complaint.</p>

<p>Do we have such laws in US?</p>

<p>Many acts that constitute such crime are not prosecuted because nobody bothers reporting it.</p>

<p>However, in case of governor election, Ahok is jailed due to one such case. The law the way it is written is so elastic that anyone could be jailed by it. However, most of the time, the guy accused of the law is not running for gubernatorial election. Hence, most of the time, there is little incentive to use the law.</p>

<p>Western countries have elections too. They also have criminal and civil laws. Do they have "delik aduan" (reportable chapter) kind of laws?</p>

<p>That sounds a lot like the German <em><a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antragsdelikt" rel="noreferrer">Antragsdelikt</a></em> (literally "crime by request"). That is a crime (defined in the criminal code), that can only be prosecuted if the victim requests it.</p>

<p><em>Antragsdelikt</em> mostly applies to less serious crimes, such as slander or petty theft, while "serious" crimes, such as robbery or assault must always be prosecuted (<em>Offizialdelikt</em>). Also, there are many minor crimes (<em>relatives Antragsdelikt</em>) which are usually only prosecuted by request, but where the prosecution can also decide to press charges if it is in the "public interest" (usually because the act is deemed a serious infraction).</p>

<p>Similar concepts exist in Austria and Switzerland.</p>

<p>This is a layman's answer. No, they are not considered enforceable, and yes they try.</p>

<p>In a small town I lived in my girlfriend wanted to raise some chickens. So we got some chicks and they wandered around the yard, and we were issued a citation, with a copy of the city statue stapled to it. The law was said (to paraphrase, since it was awhile back and I have no copies), that you may have chickens, hens only, a couple of other guide lines, <strong>as long as none of your neighbors within 300 feet objected</strong>. I did some internet research as best I could without law library access and found a couple of cases to cite and wrote a motion to dismiss. (the city attorney countered with opps we gave them the wrong statue, I wrote another motion on that, then the chickens started getting killed by a local dog and we got rid of them. I went to CA and told him the chicks was gone and he withdrew.)</p>

<p>What I find out I think was based in a concept of common law that says something must be a crime in order to be a crime. Rather or not it is a crime or not cannot be subject to someone else deciding that they don't like it so therefore it is a crime. This is not like rather or not someone is reporting a crime, it is not the metaphor of a tree falling in the forest. In my case with the chickens, it only became a crime when one of my neighbor's decided it was a crime. I really could not know if having chickens was illegal or not. In other words the law was vague. </p>

<p>One of the cases I looked at was from the 40's or 50's when in a dry county a law was written that said one can open a bar that served alcohol free beer (near beer), as long as none of the city folk had an objection. If someone did object it then became a chargeable offense. Someone opened a near beer bar, some good citizen objected, the owner was cited and ordered to shutdown, he took it to court where the judge ruled in his favor. Saying essentially that having a law that said it was legal to do a thing, unless someone objected was absurd. It was no law at all since no reasonable person would be able to know if they were in violation of the law or not.</p>

<p>Its the same concept they had in Montana a couple decades ago. Montana had a speed limit of "<a href="http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/remember-reasonable-and-prudent-speed-limits-long-controversial-in-montana/article_06be4f06-f083-571d-a359-dd1698b56b77.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">reasonable and prudent</a>" during daylight hours. Drivers were getting tickets for speeding were there was no speed limit. It went to the Montana Supreme Court. Supreme Court threw out the law as "unconstitutionally vague." The result was that the state of Montana now has a speed limit on the interstate. </p>

<p>So laws like your "delik aduan", may be on the books here in the US. However there does not seem to be a legal framework that will support them if push to comes to shove with a court challenge. A law cannot be vague without being subject to being unconstitutionally vague. Laws like your "delik aduan" seem to often come under this vagueness.  </p>
