scholarly journals Juridical Analysis of the Acquittal in a Murder Crime

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 29-33
Author(s):  
Chairul Nopriansyah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

The judge plays an important role in the judiciary because the judge has the authority to examine, hear and decide on a case so that he is obliged to look for values ​​of justice in the application of progressive and responsive laws, so the judge in issuing decisions must pay attention to various considerations. Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code contains several elements of judges' considerations when making decisions. In the case of an acquittal, the judge needs carefulness and carefulness to consider so that a matter must be truly convincing. This research is a doctrinal research method that is taking the opinions of experts regarding free decisions and through legal products in the form of legislation and judges' decisions. The conclusion of this paper is First, the basic consideration of the judge in passing a free verdict (vrijspraak) is not fulfilling the minimum limit of evidence by the public prosecutor so that the judge will release the defendant because the evidence that can blame the defendant is insufficient and based on the elaboration of the writer above, the Supreme Court allows legal efforts to overturn an acquittal (vrijspraak) namely an appeal on an acquittal, but not all verdicts requested for appeal are always accepted by the Supreme Court.

scholarly journals UPAYA HUKUM YANG DILAKUKAN KORBAN KEJAHATAN DIKAJI DARI PERSPEKTIF SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA DALAM PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG RI

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Lilik Mulyadi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Reporting ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

Positive Legal Indonesia provides protection against crime victims who are not directly in the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, as well as outside the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code. Later in the Code of Criminal Procedure formulatif policies and by laws to understanding the victim used different terminology, namely the complainant, the complainant, witnesses, interested third parties and the injured party. In practice, the request made by the applicant with the PK as the quality of the witnesses, interested third parties, the Legal Adviser or by the Public Prosecutor and apparently only remedy reconsideration made by the Public Prosecutor and Third Party concerned (Judicial Review Decision No. 4 PK / PID/2000 November 28 2001), which was granted by the Supreme Court while the petition for judicial review filed applicant witnesses (Judicial Review Decision No. 11 PK/PID/2003 August 6, 2003), or the reporting witness stated by the Supreme Court was not accepted by because the applicant is not qualified to appeal judicial review. From the theoretical dimension turns doing different interpretations of the Supreme Court as provided Art. 263 paragraph (1) Criminal Procedure Code that the applicant is granted a judicial review conducted by the Public Prosecutor and the Third Party concerned on the one hand while on the other side of the applicant's application for judicial review of quality reporting victims or witnesses can not be accepted. Keywords: remedies, victims of crime, judicial review

scholarly journals Analisis Yuridis Putusan Bebas terhadap Kasus Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-411
Author(s):  
Ramot Lumbantoruan
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Judicial Role

The purpose of this research is to describe the legal arrangements regarding the Free Verdict according to positive legal provisions, the Judicial role of the Judge in deciding a case and Juridical Analysis of a conviction for a murder crime (Study of Judgment Number 423 / Pid / 2008 PN. South Jakarta. This research method is normative juridical research.The nature of this research is descriptive analysis, which is a method used to describe a condition or condition that is happening or ongoing in order to provide as much data as possible about the object of research so as to explore things that are ideal, then analyzed based on legal theory or applicable laws and regulations.Results of this study, first, the legal arrangements regarding the acquittal according to positive legal provisions is to look at Article 191 Paragraph (1), paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code specifically also provides an understanding that reinforces its role law about being free from all lawsuits. Second, the role of judges legally in deciding a case in the decision of Case Decision Number 423 / Pid / 2008 / PN. South Jakarta is a judge must pay attention to the interests of various parties, both the interests of the defendant, witnesses, and the interests of the Public Prosecutor.

scholarly journals Pembatasan Kasasi Perkara Pidana Oleh Mahkamah Agung Ditinjau Dari Hak Rakyat Untuk Memperoleh Keadilan

ADALAH ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurelia Verina Withania ◽  
Ahmad Mahyani
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
The Public ◽  
Analysis Techniques ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Basic Purpose ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Prescriptive Analysis

The existence of rules limiting the cassation becomes an obstacle for the public to obtain justice and is not in accordance with the principles of the state of Indonesia as a state of law which is stated in the provisions of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in Article 28D. Problem: Is the limitation of cassation in Article 45A of the Supreme Court Law in accordance with the provisions of the 1945 Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code. This research is a normative research method with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach as well as prescriptive analysis techniques. The cassation legal effort should return to its basic purpose, namely maintaining legal uniformity and unity and providing justice for the community.

scholarly journals Kajian Yuridis Dasar Hukum Jaksa Penuntut Umum Melakukan Upaya Hukum Kasasi Terhadap Putusan Bebas (Vrijspraak) Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Heru Drajat Sulistyo
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Data Types ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code

This study discusses theoretically normative about the appeal made by the Public Prosecutor on the verdict free (vrijspraak) in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System intended to find solutions to the juridical problems arising from the acquittal. The problem in this study, namely: What is the legal basis for the Public Prosecutor to conduct an appeal against the verdict (vrijspraak). The research method used is a normative legal research method and uses secondary data types, including primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials collected through library studies, print media, electronic media. The results of the research study, namely: the legal basis of the Public Prosecutor conducting an appeal against the verdict (vrijspraak) is the Decree of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Indonesia Number M.14-PW.07.03 of 1983 dated December 10, 1983 concerning Supplementary Guidelines for the Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Code (item 19) . Then the Supreme Court Decree Reg. no: 275 K / Pid / 1983 in the Raden Sonson Natalegawa case was the first decision to be born as jurisprudence for a free verdict after the entry into force of the Criminal Procedure Code. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court Decision Number 114 / PUU-X / 2012 dated March 28, 2013. The existence of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 114 / PUU-X / 2012 dated March 28, 2013, the public must accept the Public Prosecutor is contested with legal action to appeal against the acquittal (vrijspraak).

scholarly journals Tinjauan Yuridis Peninjauan Kembali yang Diajukan oleh Jaksa Penuntut Umum Terhadap Putusan Lepas dari Segala Tuntutan Hukum

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-151
Author(s):  
M. Jordan Pradana ◽  
Syofyan Nur ◽  
Erwin Erwin
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Logical Concept ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Special Rules

ABSTRAK Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui secara yuridis terhadap kedudukan Jaksa Penuntut Umum dalam mengajukan upaya hukum Peninjauan Kembali kepada Mahkamah Agung. Peninjauan Kembali berdasarkan Pasal 263 ayat (1) hanya dapat dilakukam oleh terpidana atau ahli waris terpidana, namun pada kenyataannya Jaksa Penuntut Umum pernah mengajukan permintaan Peninjauan Kembali dan diterima oleh Mahkamah Agung. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian normatif yaitu pendekatan yang menggunakan konsep logis positivis yang menyatakan bahwa hukum adalah identik dengan norma-norma tertulis yang dibuat dan diundang oleh lembaga-lembaga atau pejabat yang berwenang. Hasil penelitian diketahui bahwa terdapat kekosongan norma hukum mengenai kedudukan Jaksa Penuntut Umum dalam mengajukan permintaan Peninjauan Kembali dan menyarankan dibentuknya aturan khusus mengenai kedudukan Jaksa Penuntut Umum dalam mengajukan peninjauan kembali. Kesimpulan yaitu Sesuai dengan Pasal 263 ayat (1) KUHAP Jaksa Penuntut Umum tidak berhak mengajukan peninjauan kembali, karena yang berhak mengajukan peninjauan kembali hanya terpidana dan ahli warisnya dan peninjauan kembali tidak bisa dilakukan terhadap putusan bebas atau putusan lepas dari segala tuntutan hukum dan diperlukan aturan khusus mengenai peninjauan kembali yang diajukan oleh Jaksa Penuntut Umum, sehingga terwujudnya keadilan, kepastian hukum, dan kemanfaatan hukum. ABSTRACT This study aims to find out juridically about the position of the public prosecutor in filing legal remedies for judicial review to the Supreme Court. A review based on Article 263 paragraph (1) can only be carried out by the convict or the convict's heirs, but in reality the Public Prosecutor has submitted a request for reconsideration and was accepted by the Supreme Court. The method used in this research is normative research, which is an approach that uses a positivist logical concept which states that law is identical to written norms made and invited by authorized institutions or officials. The results of the study show that there is a vacuum in legal norms regarding the position of the Public Prosecutor in submitting a request for reconsideration and suggesting the formation of special rules regarding the position of the Public Prosecutor in filing a review. The conclusion is that in accordance with Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Public Prosecutor has no right to file a review, because only the convict and his heirs are entitled to apply for a review and the review cannot be carried out against an acquittal or a decision to be released from all lawsuits and regulations are required. specifically regarding the review submitted by the Public Prosecutor, so that justice, legal certainty and legal benefits can be realized.

scholarly journals BUKTI ELEKTRONIK SEBAGAI ALAT BUKTI YANG SAH DALAM HUKUM ACARA PIDANA / ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AS AN ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 463
Author(s):  
NFN Ramiyanto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Independent Evidence ◽  
Electronic Evidence ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Functional Equivalent ◽  
Admissible Evidence

KUHAP sebagai hukum acara pidana yang bersifat umum tidak mengakui bukti elektronik sebagai salah satu jenis alat bukti yang sah. Di dalam praktik, bukti elektronik juga digunakan sebagai alat bukti yang sah untuk membuktikan tindak pidana yang terjadi di pengadilan. Dari hasil pembahasan dapat disimpulkan, bahwa bukti elektronik dalam hukum acara pidana berstatus sebagai alat bukti yang berdiri sendiri dan alat bukti yang tidak berdiri sendiri (pengganti bukti surat apabila memenuhi prinsip/dasar dalam functional equivalent approach dan perluasan bukti petunjuk) sebagaimana dicantumkan dalam beberapa undang-undang khusus dan instrumen hukum yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Agung. Walaupun bukti elektronik tidak diatur dalam KUHAP sebagai lex generalis, namun untuk tercapainya kebenaran materiil dapat juga digunakan sebagai alat bukti yang sah untuk pembuktian seluruh jenis tindak pidana di pengadilan. Hal itu didasarkan pada pengakuan dalam praktik peradilan pidana, beberapa undang-undang khusus, dan instrumen yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Agung.The Criminal Procedure Code as a general criminal procedure does not recognize electronic evidence as one of the admissible types of evidence. In practice, electronic evidence is also used as an admissible evidence to prove the criminal offenses in court. From the results of the discussion it can be concluded that electronic evidence in criminal procedure law is a dependent evidence and an independent evidence (substitution of letter proof if it meets the principle of functional equivalent approach and expansion of evidence) as specified in several special laws and instruments issued by the Supreme Court. The electronic evidence is not regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code as a lex generalis, however, to achieve material truth it can also be used as a valid evidence for the provision of all types of criminal offenses in court. It is based on recognition in the practice of criminal justice, some special laws, and instruments issued by the Supreme Court.

scholarly journals Referring a Case to the Highest Division of the Supreme Court in the Criminal Procedure Legislation of Ukraine and European Countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-165
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Uniform Law ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Court Practice

The article aims to examine one of the elements of the formal mechanism of maintaining court practice unity in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries – referring a case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Similar to the Ukrainian criminal procedure legislation, the grounds for referring a criminal case and the procedure of its application are provided in the legislation of Estonia, Italy and Lithuania. At the same time, the Ukrainian legislator has established a number of special features, however, the wording of the relevant articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is not perfect. The article provides answers to such questions as how forceful the provisions of criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine are, to what extent of effectiveness the Supreme Court exercises its legal authority regarding the unity of court practice in criminal proceedings, and whether the controversies in legal positions of the structural divisions of the Supreme Court have been successfully avoided. In order to achieve the stated aims, parts 2 and 3 are devoted to the examination of the grounds for referring a case in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries. Part 4 outlines the shortcomings of the content of some articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine concerning the procedure of the referral of a criminal case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Part 5 provides the analysis of the validity of decisions made by the boards of judges at the Supreme Court on the referral of criminal proceedings to its higher judicial divisions – the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. On the basis of the study of the judgements of boards, the judicial chambers of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in part 6 the question is answered on whether the Supreme Court of Ukraine managed to perform its duty on the assurance of court practice unity in such an area as criminal proceedings. Keywords: exclusive legal problem, development of law, formation of uniform law enforcement practice, the Supreme Court, criminal proceedings, Ukraine.

scholarly journals IMPLEMENTASI TUGAS HAKIM PENGAWAS DAN PENGAMAT DALAM PENGAWASAN DAN PENGAMATAN TERHADAP NARAPIDANA (Kajian di Lembaga Pemasyarakatan Klas II A Purwokerto)

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dessy Perdani Yuris PS
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Internal Resistance ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

The implementation of court judgments needs to be observed and perceived, thus the birth of Supervisor and Observer Judge Institution by Law No. 8 of 1981. The position of a Judge is not simply responsible for imposition of punishment, but also have to responsible for completion of punishment term by inmates in Correctional Institute by appropriate pattern and program of counseling. Besides in article 277 KUHAP till article 288 KUHAP it is charged another task as supervisor and observer of the court decision. The research results show that the implementation of the Supervisory Judge task and Observers in the execution of court decisions in Purwokerto Penitentiary is based on the Criminal Procedure Code Article 277 through Article 283 Criminal Procedure Code, the implementing regulations of the Supreme Court Circular No. RI. No. 7 of 1985. Supervisory Judge in the performance of duties and Observers in Purwokerto Penitentiary still met the constraints that are internal or external, internal resistance from law enforcement and the factors of factor means or facilities. Then the external barriers are the ruling factor.Keywords : Supervisor and Observer Judge, Purwokerto Penitentiary and prisoner

scholarly journals Separate Filing (Splitsing) In Criminal Case Management

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 461
Author(s):  
Hidayat Abdulah
Keyword(s):  
Case Management ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Case File ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Court Process

In the implementation of the criminal case handling a lot of things that can be done to perfect evidence is the failure by one of them is doing a separate filing (splitsing). In Article 142 Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that the public prosecutor has the authority to separate docket (splitsing) against each defendant if found lacking evidence and testimony, as well as other matters that are not included in the provisions of Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Separation of the case must be based on solely the purpose of examination. That's what makes the public prosecutor has the authority to determine the case file should be separated (splitsing) or not. The purpose for doing the separation of the case file (splitsing) is to facilitate the enforcement of the prosecutor when the court process, to strengthen the evidence for lack of evidence when the process of verification, then a criminal offense committed by the offender more than one and the same time one of these actors into the search list (DPO) which allow splitsing.Keywords: Separate Filing; The Criminal Case.

scholarly journals Disparitas Penuntutan Pada Perkara Tindak Pidana Penganiayaan dalam Sistem Pemidanaan di Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-78
Author(s):  
Benny Leonard Saragih ◽  
Ediwarman Ediwarman ◽  
Muaz Zul
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Internal Factors ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Substantive Law

Difference in punishment or sentencing disparity is basically a natural thing because it can be said almost no case that is really the same. Disparity becomes a problem when the range of the sentence imposed differences between similar cases so large, giving rise to injustice and can give rise to suspicions in the community. Disparities in the Criminal (disparity of sentencing) is not the same as the application of criminal offenses against the same (same offense) or the criminal acts that are dangerous to be compared (offenses of comparable seriousness) without clear justification. Based on Law No. 16 of 2004 which replaced Law No. 5 of 1991 About the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia is an institution in the field of prosecution of the main authority of the public prosecutor act prosecution about what is meant by the prosecution as well as the reference to the provisions of Article 1 point 7 and Article 137 Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Law of Criminal Procedure Code (Criminal Code). Research Methods in writing this thesis carried out by the method of normative law, namely analyzing and searching for answers to the problems raised by the substantive law / legal norms contained in the rules of law, the Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA), the Supreme Court Circular, and etc. Factors that cause the disparity criminal offense namely Legislation Provisions factors, internal factors and external factors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document