scholarly journals PENGENAAN PIDANA DENDA YANG DAPAT DIKONVERSI DENGAN PIDANA KURUNGAN PADA PELAKU ANAK

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 363
Author(s):  
Emmilia Rusdiana
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Job Training ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Criminal Sanction ◽  
Prison Sentence ◽  
Criminal Punishment

ABSTRAKPutusan Nomor 29/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/PN.Trg menjatuhkan pidana penjara dan denda, dengan ketentuan apabila tidak dibayar, diganti (konversi) dengan pidana kurungan dua bulan. Padahal Pasal 71 ayat (3) Undang-Undang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak mensyaratkan pidana denda hanya dapat digantikan dengan pelatihan kerja. Permasalahannya adalah apakah sudah sesuai penjatuhan pidana denda yang dapat dikonversi dengan pidana kurungan dikaitkan dengan asas hukum pidana, asas, dan tujuan pemidanaan anak? Jenis penelitian adalah yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian membuktikan pengenaan sanksi pada putusan hakim tidak sesuai dengan asas hukum pidana berupa legalitas, subsidiaritas, dan kesamaan. Putusan hakim juga tidak sesuai dengan asas pemidanaan anak terutama perampasan kemerdekaan dan pemidanaan sebagai upaya terakhir, asas penghindaran pembalasan serta asas kepentingan terbaik bagi anak. Putusan ini juga menunjukkan adanya tujuan pemidanaan anak sebagai pembalasan daripada perbaikan, dan orientasi pada tujuan pemidanaan pada anak lebih dikedepankan daripada sanksi pidana itu sendiri. Jadi pelatihan kerja lebih tepat dijadikan pilihan daripada pidana kurungan.Kata kunci: konversi pidana; asas pemidanaan anak; tujuan pemidanaan anak. ABSTRACT Decision Number 29/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/PN.Trg has impose a prison sentence and a fine, with the provisions that if it is unpaid, it will be substituted with a twomonth confinement sentence. Article 71 paragraphs (3) the Criminal Justice System for Children requires that the substitution of criminal fine should be job training. The question is to determine wether the conversion of criminal fines with confinement is already in accordance with the principles of law, policies, and the purpose of criminal punishment for children. This type of research is normative juridical. The results of the study need to show that the imposition of sanctions on judges’ decision is not following the principles of criminal law in the form of legality, subsidiarity, and equality. The court decision is not under the policy of child punishment, especially deprivation of liberty and conviction as a last resort, the principle of avoidance of retaliation, and the principle of the best interests of children. This decision also shows that the purpose of punishing children in revenge rather than reparation, and orientation towards the goal of criminalization of children is more prioritized than criminal sanction itself, so job training is best suited as a choice rather than confinement sanction. Keywords: criminal conversion; principle of child criminalization; purpose of child criminalization.

Restoration of Social Justice and Imposition of Proportionate Punishment in the Context of the Principle Non Bis In Idem

10.12737/7595 ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Сергей Андрусенко ◽  
Sergey Andrusenko
Keyword(s):  
Social Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Modern Medicine ◽  
System Study ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law

The article discusses current issues in the restoration of victim rights by applying one of the fundamental principles of criminal law: the reestablishment of social justice and the commensurability/proportionality of the criminal justice system. Study the problems in the theory of criminal punishment that justify the possibility of increasing the punishment after conviction. The author also analyzes some of the positions of modern medicine which is based on the ability to change the verdict and appointment of new criminal penalties. Insufficient developed changes that were made to the criminal procedure law, can create problems of law enforcement practices that lead to a substantial violation of the rights of victims. The article also examines conflict general principles of criminal law, namely, the restoration of social justice and proportionality of criminal punishment and principle non bis in idem. The author points out significant challenges that may arise in law enforcement and offers solutions.

scholarly journals PENERAPAN SANKSI PIDANA TERHADAP ANAK PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Krismiyarsi
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Community Service ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Job Training ◽  
Historical Aspects ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
Criminal Penalties

The type of crime that can be applied to the offender's offender is regulated in Article 71 of the Child Criminal Justice System Act, namely principal and additional criminal penalties. The principal crimes consist of criminal warnings, criminal conditions (coaching outside the institution, community service; or supervision), job training, coaching in institutions, and prisons. Additional penalties consist of: Deprivation of profits obtained from criminal acts or fulfillment of customary obligations . This is intended to provide an opportunity for the judge to choose which criminal is suitable for the child in the case he is handling. In practice, judges do not always impose criminal offenses similar to the types of criminal acts listed in the material criminal law in accordance with the article which are violated by the offender's offender, even the judge is not bound by the prosecutor's demands. The judge has the freedom to impose a criminal in accordance with his conscience. In addition to being influenced by juridical considerations, judges' decisions are also non-judicial considerations, namely the sociological, psychological, ethical, and historical aspects of the child.

What of the Child? Preventing the Publication of Children's Names After the Age of 18

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 1-31
Author(s):  
Sophy Baird
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Child Victims ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Right

Children are afforded a number of protections when they encounter the criminal justice system. The need for special protection stems from the vulnerable position children occupy in society. When children form part of the criminal justice system, either by being an offender, victim, or witness, they may be subjected to harm. To mitigate against the potential harm that may be caused, our law provides that criminal proceedings involving children should not be open to the public, subject to the discretion of the court. This protection naturally seems at odds with the principle of open justice. However, the courts have reconciled the limitation with the legal purpose it serves. For all the protection and the lengths that the law goes to protect the identity of children in this regard, it appears there is an unofficial timer dictating when this protection should end. The media have been at the forefront of this conundrum to the extent that they believe that once a child (offender, victim, or witness) turns 18 years old, they are free to reveal the child's identity. This belief, grounded in the right to freedom of expression and the principle of open justice, is at odds with the principle of child's best interests, right to dignity and the right to privacy. It also stares incredulously in the face of the aims of the Child Justice Act and the principles of restorative justice. Measured against the detrimental psychological effects experienced by child victims, witnesses, and offenders, this article aims to critically analyse the legal and practical implications of revealing the identity of child victims, witnesses, and offenders after they turn 18 years old.

The Quest for Coherence in Kenya’s Judicial Sentencing Policy: A Review of the Jurisprudence Following the Muruatetu Case

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-149
Author(s):  
Phyllis Ngugi
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Sentencing Policy

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.

scholarly journals Wife Assault, The Justice System and Professional Responsibility

1995 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 908
Author(s):  
Diana Ginn
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Battered Women ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Professional Responsibility ◽  
Wife Assault ◽  
The Past ◽  
Key Players ◽  
The Way

The author reviews the response of the criminal justice system to the problem of wife assault by focusing on the key players within the system. The way the criminal law applies to wife assault affects battered women's access to that area of law known as family law, with negative repercussions for them and their children. Several myths about the nature of wife assault help ensure an inappropriate response. These include the myths that the woman is to blame, that by just leaving the abusive situation she can resolve it, and that if she does not leave it is because she enjoys the abuse. The author reviews current methods used by police, prosecutors and judges for dealing with wife assault and discusses the inadequacies of those methods. She concludes that despite many recommendations for change, there have been no significant improvements in the way the criminal justice system deals with wife assault. It is incumbent upon the legal profession to demonstrate professional responsibility by ensuring that wife assault is taken more seriously than it is now and than it has been in the past. This is a necessary reform before battered women can rely on the criminal justice system.

scholarly journals Legality Letter of Statement of Khilaf in Indonesia Criminal Justice System

FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 128
Author(s):  
Rugun Romaida Hutabarat
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Criminal Matters

In criminal law, a person charged with a criminal offense may be punished if it meets two matters, namely his act is unlawful, and the perpetrator of a crime may be liable for the indicated action (the offender's error) or the act may be dismissed to the perpetrator, and there is no excuse. The reasons may result in the death or the removal of the implied penalty. But it becomes a matter of how if the Letter of Statement Khilaf is the answer to solve the legal problems. The person who refuses or does not do what has been stated in the letters is often called "wanprestasi" because the statement is categorized as an agreement. The statement includes an agreement which is the domain of civil law or criminal law, so its application in the judicial system can be determined. This should be reviewed in the application of the law, are there any rules governing wrong statements in the criminal justice system. By using a declaration of khilaf as a way out of criminal matters, then the statement should be known in juridical rules. This study uses normative juridical methods, by conceptualizing the law as a norm rule which is a benchmark of human behavior, with emphasis on secondary data sources collected from the primary source of the legislation. The result of this research is that the statement of khilaf has legality, it is based on Jurisprudence No. 3901 K / Pdt / 1985 jo Article 189 Paragraph (1) of Indonesian criminal procedure law. However, this oversight letter needs to be verified in front of the court to be valid evidence, but this letter of error is not a deletion of a criminal offense, because the culpability of the defendant has justified the crime he committed. Such recognition, cannot make it free from the crime that has been committed.Keywords: Legality, Letter of Statement, Criminal Justice System

scholarly journals Judicial Discretion in Sentencing: A Justice System that is No Longer Just?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Sean J. Mallett
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
Regional Disparity ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Synthesis Approach

<p>One of the fundamental principles of the criminal law is consistency: like offenders must be treated alike. However, research has shown that when it comes to sentencing in New Zealand there is in fact substantial regional disparity in the penalty imposed on similarly situated offenders. The situation is unacceptable, and undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system. This paper will explore three different mechanisms for guiding judicial discretion in the pursuit of sentencing consistency. It will undertake an analysis of mandatory sentences and the ‘instinctive synthesis’ approach, both of which will be shown to be unsatisfactory. Instead, the paper will argue that the establishment of a Sentencing Council with a mandate to draft presumptively binding guidelines is the most appropriate way forward for New Zealand. This option finds the correct equilibrium between giving a judge sufficient discretion to tailor a sentence that is appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case, yet limiting discretion enough to achieve consistency between cases.</p>

scholarly journals Discreet Discretion and Moderate Moderation in Judicial Sentencing: A commentary on Kenya’s Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-112
Author(s):  
Harrison O Mbori
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Cultural Development ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Criminal Sentencing ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Sentencing Policy

Criminal sentencing is an integral part in any judicial system for the fair administration of justice. The process of sentencing and the standards applied by judicial officers has, however, been a notoriously difficult component in many criminal law systems. In Kenya, sentencing has been blamed as one of the sources of ‘popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice’ to borrow from Roscoe Pound. This was the impetus for the Kenyan Judiciary to introduce the Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2016 (SPGs). This paper is a general commentary, critique, and analysis of the SPGs. The author argues that SPGs come at an instructive epoch in Kenya’s economic, socio-political, and cultural development. This contribution is not a polemic on the Kenyan SPGs. The commentary makes sideglances to various jurisdictions that have had a longer experience with sentencing guidelines. The article forecasts that Kenyan SPGs will, despite its few shortcomings, nevertheless, prove to be important for all judicial officers involved in Kenya’s criminal justice system.

The Criminal Justice System: Materials on the Administration and Reform of the Criminal Law

1980 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 477
Author(s):  
James Lindgren ◽  
Franklin E. Zimring ◽  
Richard S. Frase
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System

After the Crime

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-396
Author(s):  
Paul H. Robinson ◽  
Muhammad Sarahne
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Access To Education ◽  
Preferential Treatment ◽  
Collateral Consequences ◽  
Probation And Parole ◽  
Principles Of Justice

Although an offender’s conduct before and during the crime is the traditional focus of criminal law and sentencing rules, an examination of post-offense conduct can also be important in promoting criminal justice goals. After the crime, different offenders make different choices and have different experiences, and those differences can suggest appropriately different treatment by judges, correctional officials, probation and parole supervisors, and other decision makers in the criminal justice system. Positive post-offense conduct ought to be acknowledged and rewarded, not only to encourage it but also as a matter of fair and just treatment. This essay describes four kinds of positive post-offense conduct that merit special recognition and preferential treatment: the responsible offender, who avoids further deceit and damage to others during the process leading to conviction; the debt-paid offender, who suffers the full punishment deserved (according to true principles of justice rather than the sentence actually imposed); the reformed offender, who takes affirmative steps to leave criminality behind; and the redeemed offender, who out of genuine remorse tries to atone for the offense. The essay considers how one might operationalize a system for giving special accommodation to such offenders. Positive post-offense conduct might be rewarded, for example, through the selection and shaping of sanctioning methods, through giving preference in access to education, training, treatment, and other programs, and through elimination or restriction of collateral consequences of conviction that continue after the sentence is completed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document