scholarly journals REFORMASI SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA DALAM RANGKA PENANGGULANGAN MAFIA PERADILAN

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Pajar Widodo

The purpose of reformation criminal justice system is to strengthen the principle of independence and impartiality criminal justice. Strengthening of independence principle and impartiality criminal justice is done in the process of constitutional amendment and legislation. The reformation of the criminal justice system includes the substance of the law of one roof system design of judicial power that culminated in the Supreme Court. The strengthening of the principle of independence and impartiality criminal justice is to overcome judicial mafia practice that equipped by law reformation culture to uphold the value system, which are values and principles due process of law. Keyword: Judicial reform, independence, judicial mafia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
nur rois

Tulisan ini membahas mengenai perbandingan hukum pidana dalam tindak pidana terorismedari sudut pandang due process of law bagi pelaku tindak pidana terorisme, terdapatperbedaan yang signifikan terutama terkait sistem adversarial yang dianut sistem peradilanpidana australia dan inggris dibandingkan dengan sistem peradilan pidana di Indonesiadimana perlindungan hak asasi pelaku lebih diperhatikan sehingga sistem peradilan pidana diAustralia dan Inggris lebih kondusif untuk menciptakan due process of law.These writings discuss about comparative criminal law in the criminal acts of terrorism fromthe standpoint of due process of law for criminal acts, perpetrators of terrorism, there aresignificant differences, particularly regarding the subscribed adversarial system of criminaljustice system compared to english australia and criminal justice system in Indonesia whereprotection of rights observed until the perpetrator more fundamental criminal justice systemin Australia and England are more conducive to creating due process of law.


2020 ◽  
Vol V (Winter 2020) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Muhammad Haroon ◽  
Najib Ullah ◽  
Nazim Rahim

Pakistan is going through turmoil of terrorism. The State is doing what it can to eradicate this menace and in so doing established Field General Court Martial commonly known as Military Courts in wake of barbaric attack on Army Public School in December 2014. However, it is not the solution to the long standing problem motivated and nurtured by various factors like political, religious etc. Instead drastic changes are required to amend and update the existing criminal justice system including legal framework, training for judges, prosecutions, protection of witnesses as well as prosecution/defense. This will pave a way for reforms and improve security situation in Pakistan instead of challenging the credibility and capacity of the superior judiciary. In this way, violence can be countered by respecting Fundamental Rights and following due process of law. Also this will enable the state institutes to cooperate in a better way


2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 52-58
Author(s):  
Nilo Couret

Nilo Couret interviews Brazilian documentary filmmaker Maria Augusta Ramos. Her recent documentary, O Processo (The Trial, 2018), chronicles the “parliamentary coup” against Dilma Rousseff, delving into the impeachment process and the former president's trial in the Senate. In O Processo, Ramos engages with enduring themes and subjects from her twenty-year career, particularly her well-known Justice Trilogy, which examined the Brazilian criminal justice system. For Ramos, documentary shares an affinity with forensic discourse when its purpose is truth-telling in the service of justice. Rousseff's trial and impeachment, however, find the filmmaker probing how justice has been sundered from the truth in a contemporary moment when corruption scandals and fake news compromise our democratic institutions. Her films combine an observational approach with institutional analyses in order to reveal the workings of power behind the surfaces of everyday life.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-149
Author(s):  
Phyllis Ngugi

The Supreme Court decision in the now-infamous case Francis Karioko Muruatetu v Republic1 seemed to settle the enduring debate whether sentencing is a judicial or a legislative function. The court’s ruling was that sentencing is a judicial function and that the mandatory nature of the death penalty for murder2 was unconstitutional because it took away the courts’ discretion to determine a just and proportionate punishment to impose on a convicted person. In its judgment, the court ordered that the judiciary sentencing policy3 be revised to reflect the court’s guidelines on the obligation of courts to listen to the accused’s mitigation before sentencing. The court also directed that a framework for sentence rehearing be prepared immediately to allow applicants who had been sentenced in circumstances similar to those of the petitioners to apply for sentence a rehearing from the trial court. This article examines the aftermath of this judgment in terms of whether the Supreme Court’s decision helped to cure the challenge that lies in the current sentencing process; achieving coherence and proportionality in the sentencing process. By using jurisprudential arguments, we intend to demonstrate that, despite the court’s direction to all courts to ensure that no person should be subjected to a disproportionate sentence, the problem of disproportional sentencing is one that goes beyond merely reviewing of the sentencing guidelines but also demands a reform of the entire criminal justice system.


1997 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Fenwick

This paper draws attention to the interests of the victim in the criminal justice system in relation to the use of charge bargaining and the sentence discount in UK law. The paper argues that debate in this area tends to assume that these practices, particularly use of the graded sentence discount, are in harmony with the needs of crime control and with the interests of victims, but that they may infringe due process rights. Debate tends to concentrate on the due process implications of such practices, while the ready association of victims' interests with those of crime control tends to preclude consideration of a distinctive victim's perspective. This paper therefore seeks to identify the impact of charge bargaining and the sentence discount on victims in order to identify a particular victim's perspective. It goes on to evaluate measures which would afford it expression including the introduction of victim consultation and participation in charge bargains and discount decisions as proposed under the 1996 Victim's Charter. It will be argued, however, that while this possibility has value, victims' interests might be more clearly served by limiting or abandoning the use of these practices.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 47-57
Author(s):  
Yusif Mamedov

It has been established that harsh Islamic punishments are practically not applied due to the high burden of proof and the need to involve an exhaustive number of witnesses. It has been proven that the Islamic criminal justice system provides the accused with basic guarantees. It is noted that according to Sharia, Islamic crimes are divided into three categories: Hadd, Qisas and Tazir. It is noted that Islamic criminal law provides that the accused is not guilty if his guilt is not proven. It is noted that equality before the law is one of the main legal principles of the Islamic criminal model, as all persons are equal before the law and are condemned equally regardless of religious or economic status (lack of immunity). There are four main principles aimed at protecting human rights in Islamic criminal law: the principle of legality (irreversible action), the principle of presumption of innocence, the principle of equality and the principle of ultimate proof. In addition, the Islamic criminal justice system provides defendants with many safeguards, which are always followed during detention, investigation, trial and after trial. It is established that such rights are: 1) the right of every person to the protection of life, honor, freedom and property; 2) the right to due process of law; 3) the right to a fair and open trial before an impartial judge; 4) freedom from coercion to self-disclosure; 5) protection against arbitrary arrest and detention; 6) immediate court proceedings; 7) the right to appeal. It is noted that if a person is charged, he/she has many remedies It is noted that the trial must be fair, in which the qadi (judge) plays an important role. It has been established that, in addition to the procedural guarantees, the qualifications and character of the qadi, as well as the strict requirements of Islamic rules of proof, are intended to ensure a fair trial in the case of the accused. Adherence to these principles has been shown to indicate that the rights of the accused are fully guaranteed under Islamic criminal law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document