scholarly journals ALTERNATIF PENJATUHAN HUKUMAN MATI DI INDONESIA DILIHAT DARI PERSPEKTIF HAM (Alternative of Death Penalty of Human Rights Perspective, In Indonesia)

Jurnal HAM ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 69
Author(s):  
Bungasan Hutapea
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
The State ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Important Thing ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process

Penjatuhan pidana mati merupakan bagian terpenting dari proses peradilan pidana. Penerapan pidana mati oleh Negara melalui putusan pengadilan, berarti Negara mengambil hak hidup terpidana yang merupakan hak asasi manusia yang sifatnya tidak dapat dibatasi (non derogable). Oleh karena itu penerapannya harus memperhatikan Hak Asasi Manusia terpidana. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui penjatuhan hukuman mati bagi pelaku kejahatan, bertentangan dengan atau tidak dengan hak asasi manusia dan kriteria penjatuhan pidana mati bagi pelaku kejahatan yang tidak bertentangan dengan hak asasi manusia. Metode yang digunakan adalah pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan data sekunder. Dapat disimpulkan bahwa penjatuhan pidana mati bertentangan dengan Hak Asasi Manusia dan penetapan dapat dibenarkan dengan alasan membela hak asasi manusia dan hanya pada kejahatan yang bersifat melampaui batas kemanusiaan.AbstractThe death penalty is an important thing in the criminal justice process. Its practice by the state with a verdict, that means state takes a life right of convict which is a nonderogable right. Therefore, its practice must pay attention to their human right. The purpose of this research is to know death penalty of the offenders and its criteria against to the human right or not. This method of this research is normative juridical with secondary data. It concludes that death penalty against to human right and its stipulation can be justifiable by reasoning to defend the human right and merely on crime tend to beyond humanity.

scholarly journals ALTERNATIF PENJATUHAN HUKUMAN MATI DI INDONESIA DILIHAT DARI PERSPEKTIF HAM (Alternative of Death Penalty of Human Rights Perspective, In Indonesia)

Jurnal HAM ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 69
Author(s):  
Bungasan Hutapea
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
The State ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Important Thing ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process

Penjatuhan pidana mati merupakan bagian terpenting dari proses peradilan pidana. Penerapan pidana mati oleh Negara melalui putusan pengadilan, berarti Negara mengambil hak hidup terpidana yang merupakan hak asasi manusia yang sifatnya tidak dapat dibatasi (non derogable). Oleh karena itu penerapannya harus memperhatikan Hak Asasi Manusia terpidana. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui penjatuhan hukuman mati bagi pelaku kejahatan, bertentangan dengan atau tidak dengan hak asasi manusia dan kriteria penjatuhan pidana mati bagi pelaku kejahatan yang tidak bertentangan dengan hak asasi manusia. Metode yang digunakan adalah pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan data sekunder. Dapat disimpulkan bahwa penjatuhan pidana mati bertentangan dengan Hak Asasi Manusia dan penetapan dapat dibenarkan dengan alasan membela hak asasi manusia dan hanya pada kejahatan yang bersifat melampaui batas kemanusiaan.AbstractThe death penalty is an important thing in the criminal justice process. Its practice by the state with a verdict, that means state takes a life right of convict which is a nonderogable right. Therefore, its practice must pay attention to their human right. The purpose of this research is to know death penalty of the offenders and its criteria against to the human right or not. This method of this research is normative juridical with secondary data. It concludes that death penalty against to human right and its stipulation can be justifiable by reasoning to defend the human right and merely on crime tend to beyond humanity.

scholarly journals HAK ASASI MANUSIA VERSUS PIDANA MATI

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boni Suparto Wuarlela
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
The State ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process

Human Rights are the basic rights of every human being as God's creatures who are equal to one another. The application of the death penalty by the state through a court decision means that the state revokes the convict's right to life which is an unlimited human right. Therefore, its implementation must take into account the rights of the convict. The purpose of this paper is to find out whether the imposition of the death penalty for criminals is against human rights. What are the criteria for imposing the death penalty for perpetrators of crimes that do not conflict with human rights? The method used is a normative research method using secondary data. It can be concluded that the imposition of the death penalty is against human rights. However, in its application, it can be justified on the grounds of defending human rights and only for crimes that go beyond humanity and damage human civilization. The implementation of the criminal justice process must be transparent and fair.

scholarly journals Victims’ rights are human rights: The importance of recognizing victims as persons

Temida ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo-Anne Wemmers
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Crime Victims ◽  
The State ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
The Right

In this paper the author argues that victims? rights are human rights. Criminal law typically views victims as witnesses to a crime against the state, thus shutting them out of the criminal justice process and only allowing them in when they are needed to testify. This is a major source of dissatisfaction for victims who seek validation in the criminal justice system. Victims are persons with rights and privileges. Crimes constitute violations of their rights as well as acts against society or the state. While human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, do not mention crime victims specifically, a number of rights are identified, which can be viewed from the victim?s perspective. As individuals with dignity, victims have the right to recognition as persons before the law. However, such rights are only meaningful if they can be enforced.

scholarly journals KONSEPSI DAN APLIKASI PIDANA MATI DALAM PERADILAN DI INDONESIA

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 711
Author(s):  
I Made Pasek Budiawan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Psychotropic Substances ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process

Imposition of the death penalty by the judge in the criminal justice process Indonesia still remains a debate among groups that agread with the group that oppose it. But in some laws for special crimes such as terrorism, corruption, narcotics, psychotropic substances, and a human rights capital punishment is still regulated, as well as of the criminal code and the concept of the criminal code by 2015 capital punishment is still based. The  existence of the group that did not agree with the conception and application of this dying, argued that human life bussiness, my God, not the man to lift the perspective of the scientific criminal law that a death penalty still exists in all criminal acts by perpetrators of crimes with widespread impact as well as detrimental to the wider community the research for criminal santions was important to examine the existence of the norms of law as a basic for corrector by maximum capital punishment in Indonesia. Penjatuhan pidana mati oleh hakim dalam proses peradilan pidana Indonesia masih tetap menjadi perdebatan antara kelompok yang setuju dengan kelompok yang menentangnya. Namun dalam beberapa undang-undang tindak pidana khusus seperti terorisme, korupsi, narkotika, psikotropika dan peradilan hak asasi manusia pidana mati masih diatur, begitu juga KUHP dan konsep KUHP tahun 2015 pidana mati masih tetap dicanangkan. Adanya kelompok yang tidak setuju dengan konsepsi dan aplikasi pidana  mati ini berdalih bahwa nyawa manusia menjadi urusan Tuhan, bukan menjadi kewenangan manusia untuk mencabutnya. Perspektif keilmuan hukum pidana bahwa pidana mati masih eksis untuk diberlakukan sepanjang tindak pidana yang dilakukan pelaku menyangkut kejahatan luar biasa dengan dampak luas serta merugikan masyarakat luas. Penelitian terhadap sanksi pidana mati penting dilakukan guna meneliti keberadaan norma hukum sebagai dasar pembenar dijatuhkannya pidana mati ini di Indonesia.

scholarly journals Mereposisi Korban dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Indonesia: Suatu Keterlemparan (gowerfen-sein) dalam Mitos Modernitas

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 525
Author(s):  
Rocky Marbun
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Grand Narrative ◽  
The People ◽  
Critical Approaches ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process

Myths in the modern era are things that are considered like truth. It arises through the process of hegemony and dialectical domination by the authority in history. So, myth is a phenomenon of common sense without criticism. The state's presence in the criminal justice process as a grand narrative identified with the interests of victims and society, in general, is common sense without criticism. This study aims to reveal whether the myth of modernity is a representation of victims in the Criminal Justice System. This study uses a normative juridical method based on secondary data with several models of approaches, including conceptual approaches, philosophical approaches, and critical approaches. The result of this research shows the phenomenon of objectification and reification of the people as victims in the Criminal Justice System in Indonesia. Mitos dalam era modern merupakan hal-hal yang diandaikan begitu saja sebagai suatu kebenaran. Hal tersebut tampil melalui proses hegemoni dan dominasi dalam dialektika otoritas dalam sejarah. Sehingga, mitos merupakan suatu fenomena common sense tanpa kritik. Kehadiran negara dalam proses peradilan pidana sebagai narasi tunggal (grand narrative) yang diidentikan dengan kepentingan korban dan masyarakat secara umum, merupakan common sense tanpa kritik. Penelitian ini ditujukan untuk membongkar apakah mitos modernitas tersebut merupakan representasi korban dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif yang berbasis kepada data sekunder dengan beberapa model pendekatan, antara lain pendekatan konseptual, pendekatan filsafat, dan pendekatan kritis. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan adanya fenomena objektivikasi dan reifikasi terhadap masyarakat sebagai korban dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Indonesia.  

The American Death Penalty

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-390
Author(s):  
Carol S. Steiker ◽  
Jordan M. Steiker
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Limited Extent ◽  
Defense Counsel ◽  
System A ◽  
Capital Cases ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process

The Supreme Court’s constitutional regulation of the American death penalty has yielded a plethora of doctrines that have shaped an alternative criminal justice process that is (mostly) limited to capital cases. Many of these doctrines offer a vision and practice of “roads not taken” in the ordinary criminal justice process that would be attractive improvements in that larger system. We consider three of these doctrines: (1) more searching review of the proportionality of sentencing outcomes; (2) imposition of a requirement of individualized sentencing that has led to the investigation and presentation of in-depth evidence in mitigation; and (3) greater regulation of the adequacy of defense counsel that has moved closer to a “checklist” model of mandated practices. Each of these doctrines was born and developed under the Court’s “death is different” regime of constitutional regulation, and each of them has to some limited extent moved beyond the strictly capital context into the broader criminal justice process. We explain how these alternative models present attractive improvements for the broader noncapital system—a view that casts the Court’s regulation of the American death penalty as a progressive laboratory that can yield alternative, more protective, and more idealized processes for the ordinary criminal justice system. Yet we also caution that the “differentness” of death—and of juvenile offenders, the noncapital context to which the Court is most likely to import its death penalty innovations—can also serve to normalize and entrench the less protective, less idealized practices that exist outside of these realms.

Reparation and Criminal Justice: Can they be Integrated?

1996 ◽  
Vol 30 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 316-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Walther
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
The State ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
The Right ◽  
Civil Courts

The role of the victim within the public criminal justice process has traditionally been one of supporting public prosecution. Without the victim's cooperation, police and prosecutors would neither be informed about the occurrence of crimes, nor be able to bring sufficient evidence to secure convictions or extra-judicial settlements. In Germany, for instance, about 90% of all prosecutions are initiated by private complaint.Compared to what the victim gives the state, the state traditionally gives little to the victim. While the victim's procedural position has been strengthened in Germany in recent decades, namely by the expansion of the right to join the prosecution as a collateral complainant, procedural participation alone has not been sufficient to satisfy the victim's need to be made whole. Victimological research indicates that the victim has a profound interest in compensation of damages. However, since according to our traditional understanding, the victim's claims and the State's claims against the offender are inherently different in nature, they ought to be governed by different types of principles and proceedings. Doctrinally, the criminal courts settle the State's conflict with the offender, while the victim's conflict with the offender is a matter for the civil law and the civil courts. Therefore, the legal consequences of crime, it is believed, reflect primarily the needs of the general public and not the “private” interests of the victim (whether defined as to receive: compensation; reparation; satisfaction; vindication).

scholarly journals THE STRUGGLE OF HUMAN RIGHTS DIPLOMACY OF INDONESIAN COUNTRY CITIZENS DEATH PENALTY

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 646-659
Author(s):  
Patricia Robin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Migrant Workers ◽  
The State ◽  
Death Sentence ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The Law

The ability of politics and diplomacy becomes the main asset when talking about the state. The problem when human rights come against the law, will lead to a tendency to be take the side of the law, as opposed to giving unpleasant things to those who make mistakes. This not infrequently results in the death penalty which eventually (again) contradicts the Human Right to live properly and in protection. This condition occurs in migrant workers who work in several countries in Asia. They were accused of mistakes that incidentally have not been proven but immediately get a death sentence. The best national ambassadors were assigned to conflict areas, succeeded in the mission of saving them. Consistency, innovation, and enrichment when diplomacy is equipped with the ability to read the situation is the key to the success of diplomats when rescuing. Indonesia's ability to maintain good relations with other countries finally deserves to be regarded as the peak of achievement.  

scholarly journals ANALYSIS OF NOTARY HONORARY COUNCIL CONSENT AS GROUNDS OF IMPUNITY (STRAFUITSLAUTINGSGRONDEN) AGAINST REVELATION OF SECRETS

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 570
Author(s):  
Gaza Carumna Iskadrenda ◽  
Anggita Mustika Dewi
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Research Result ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process

<p><em>Article 66 paragraph (1) Act Number 2 of 2014 essentially regulates the consent of the Notary Honorary Council in the criminal justice process. The provisions in the a quo article have been still being applied and become a positive law in Indonesia. One of the criminal justice process in the notarial field relates to the criminal act of revelation of secrets as regulated in Article number 322 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code. The consent given by the Notary Honorary Council as outlined above can certainly be viewed in the context of criminal law.</em></p><p><em><em>The research is a normative legal research using secondary data of both primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. The data collecting technique used is documentary study with written materials as the data collection tool to be analyzed qualitatively using content analysis.</em></em></p><p><em><em>The research result showed that in the context of criminal law, basically a notary who provides a copy of the deed and/or documents attached to the minuta deed or notarial protocol in the notarial archives for the purpose of the investigator, the public prosecutor or the judge has committed a criminal act of revelation of secrets as stipulated in Article number 322 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code. However, the notary is not necessarily criminally liable considering the consent of the Notary Honorary Council as the grounds of impunity.</em></em></p><p><em><br /></em></p><p><em><strong><em>Keywords</em></strong><em>: Notary Honorary Council consent, grounds of impunity, criminal act of revelation of secrets.</em></em></p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document