The use of language as a communication tool in the practice of criminal justice in Indonesia has ruled out the diversity of transcendental values in a person as a complete human being. The process of enforcing criminal law in Indonesia is only based on patterns of reasoning and argumentation using the ratio of instrumental actions. The richness of the language in which it brings transcendental and cultural experience seems to disappear in an instant, when the use of subjective elements and objective elements in legal norms is only directed at patterns of conformity between behavior and elements. This study aims to show that editorial formulation in criminal legislation contains only rational considerations of an act that is determined as a criminal offense but excludes the use of the parole language from the Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) to the Reported / Examined / Suspected. This study uses secondary data in the form of primary legal materials in the form of laws and court decisions, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials using a philosophical approach to language, empirical approaches and participatory approaches through a legal semiotic analysis model. Based on secondary data and the analysis model, it is known that Law Enforcement Apparatus (LEO) in verbal communication through the language of speech (parole) has a psychological impact on the Reported / Examined / Suspected, on the other hand, the meaning of written language in legislation also gives rise to feelings injustice to other interested parties. Therefore, the conclusions in this study indicate the use of parole language that is not in accordance with the objectives of criminal legislation. Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) experience being stuck (gowerfen-sein) in the practice of parole which is very detrimental to the Reported / Examined / Suspected.