scholarly journals Criminal offenses - a new institute of criminal legislation of Ukraine

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kovalova Svitlana ◽  

The article analyzes the feasibility of introducing the institution of criminal offense. The focus is on reforming the criminal justice system. It was found out that one of the directions of reforming the criminal justice of Ukraine is the introduction of the institute of criminal misdemeanor in the criminal legislation. According to the results of the study, different approaches to the expediency of establishing liability for misconduct in the criminal legislation of Ukraine have been identified. It is reasonable that changing the understanding of the concept of crime and the criteria for its evaluation is not an easy path, but in today's conditions the introduction of criminal offenses is a progressive, timely and unalterable step, as no scientific developments can solve law enforcement problems. Keywords: criminal proceedings, institute of criminal offense, crime, reforming, criminal legislation, Concept of reforms, criminal justice

Author(s):  
V. I. Przhilenskiy ◽  
I. B. Przhilenskaya

The interaction of individuals, structures and collectives in the course of digitalization of the criminal process is analyzed. The goals of various participants in the process of introducing digital technologies into criminal proceedings are considered. It is concluded that it is necessary to timely identify all the stakeholders of digitalization and other actors involved in this process, the thesis is substantiated that it is expedient to take into account and agree on strategies in order to give consistency, predictability and controllability to the digitalization process of the criminal procedural sphere of law enforcement. Thus, the readiness of the criminal justice system for the planned and actually ongoing digitalization is being tested.


Author(s):  
Bendry Almy

ABSTRAKPrinsip keadilan restoratif dalam peraturan perundang-undangan hukum pidana yang berlaku di Indonesia hanya diatur dalam Undang-Undang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak (SPPA) yang diaplikasikan dalam bentuk diversi, namun diversi tersebut hanya ditujukan bagi pelaku tindak pidana anak bukan untuk pelaku dewasa, peraturan perundang-perundangan pidana Indonesia belum mengatur prinsip keadilan restoratif bagi pelaku dewasa. Dalam praktik penegakan hukum, penerapan prinsip keadilan restoratif bagi pelaku dewasa sebagian telah dilaksanakan melalui diskresi, namun secara teoritis dan pratik pelaksanaan diskresi masih bermasalah karena belum memenuhi tiga nilai dasar hukum yaitu keadilan, kepastian dan kemanfaatan, dan diskresi juga bisa menimbulkan permasalahan ketidakadilan, karena adanya perbedaan perlakuan dalam proses penegakan hukum, sehingga asas “equality before the law” tidak dilaksanakan. Tujuan penelitian adalah untuk mengetahui bagaimana pelaksanaan prinsip keadilan restoratif dalam peraturan perundang-undangan pidana yang berlaku di Indonesia dan bagaimana penerapan diversi bagi pelaku dewasa dalam rangka mewujudkan keadilan restoratif. Jenis penelitian yaitu penelitian hukum normatif atau penelitian hukum kepustakaan, untuk mencari dan menemukan data yang dibutuhkan untuk menjawab permasalahan. Hasil penelitian diketahui bahwa peraturan perundang-undangan hukum pidana Indonesia belum mengatur tentang prinsip keadilan restoratif bagi pelaku dewasa, prinsip keadilan restoratif diterapkan baru sebatas untuk pelaku anak yang diaplikasikan dalam bentuk diversi. Secara teoritis, historis, normatif dan praktik prosedural, diversi juga dapat diterapkan untuk menyelesaikan perkara tindak pidana yang dilakukan oleh orang dewasa, namun perlu adanya perubahan dan penyesuaian terutama dalam hal tujuan pelaksanaan, kwalifikasi jenis tindak pidana dan mekanisme atau prosedur pelaksanaannya.Kata kunci: kebijakan hukum pidana; anak; dewasa; diversi; keadilan restoratif.AbstractThe principle of restorative justice in criminal law regulations in force in Indonesia is only regulated in the Law on the Criminal Justice System for Children (SPPA) which is applied in the form of diversion, however the diversion is only intended for child offenders not for adult offenders, Indonesian criminal laws and regulations do not regulate the principle of restorative justice for adult offenders. In law enforcement practices, the application of the principle of restorative justice for adult offenders has been partially implemented through discretion, but theoretically and practically the implementation of discretion is still problematic because it does not meet the three basic legal values, namely justice, certainty and benefit, and discretion can also cause problems of injustice, due to differences in treatment in the law enforcement process, so the principle of "equality before the law" is not implemented. The research goal is to find out how the implementation of the principles of restorative justice in criminal legislation in Indonesia, and how the application of diversion for adult offenders in order to realize restorative justice. This type of research is normative research or library research, to search and find the data needed to answer the problem. The results of the study note that Indonesian criminal law regulations do not regulate the principles of restorative justice for adult offenders, the principle of restorative justice is applied only to the child offenders which is applied in the form of diversion. Theoretically, historically, normatively and procedural practice, diversion can also be applied to resolve cases by adult offenders, but there needs to be changes and adjustments especially in terms of implementation objectives, qualification of the type of crime and the mechanism or procedure for its implementation.Keywords: criminal law policy; children; adults; diversion; restorative justice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 165
Author(s):  
Rafika Nur ◽  
Handar Subhandi Bakhtiar

In the children criminal justice system in Indonesia, there are two systems of sanctions namely criminal sanctions and sanctions actions. A child who commits a criminal offense may be subject to criminal sanctions or sanctions. Imposing sanctions for children becomes something oriented towards coaching and protecting children. However, the imposition of sanctions for children can not be effective because of conflicting legal rules, law enforcement officials who have different paradigms in guarding the legal process against children, facilities and infrastructure that are incomplete and inadequate, making it difficult to enforce sanctions on children as well as the poor stigmatization of society against children in conflict with the law.


Author(s):  
Sophy Baird

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.


2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 418
Author(s):  
Eva Achjani Zulfa

AbstrakHandling problems through brat children and children who have problems with the law have occurred again when some kids sticking a gamble being arrested at near Soekarno Hatta Airport areas then processed into the judicial process. Diversion is a form of change the process by which a program can only take place on hold pre-adjudication in the criminal justice system. Forms of transfer or diversion of this case are indeed associated with the authority possessed discretion of law enforcement officers. Giddiness has appeared in the process of implementation of diversion by law enforcement officials, the search for forms of application of the criminal case handlingchild has become a growing discourse management. Policy taken toward the institution of criminal diversion not only becomes demand for law enforcement officers, but also must be institutionalized through plain legal mechanisms. It becomes author's concern to create more certain procedures to brighten solve on deviant children in this way


Author(s):  
I Dewa Gede Dana Sugama

This study discusses about Inadequacy Corruption Eradication Commission In Issuing Warrant Termination of Investigation In Corruption Case. The Commission is authorized to issue a warrant termination of the investigation and to determine the actions taken when the Commission which investigated corruption Commission was not enough evidence. The conclusion of this study is, first Corruption Eradication Commission is authorized to issue an Order for Termination of Investigation in accordance with Article 40 of Law No. 30 Year 2002 about Corruption Eradication Commission, consideration of the logic of juridical is that the Commission is not a core law enforcement within the criminal justice system and just as independent institutions that can be dismissed if there is no corruption in our country. The arrangement of Article 40 of Law No. 30 of 2002 is prudential or attitude of prudence principle for the Commission to work accurately, efficiently and professionally


2021 ◽  
Vol 81 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-103
Author(s):  
V. O. Gusieva

The author has substantiated the need to establish the circumstances to be clarified and has determined their significance during the investigation. It has been emphasized that the circumstances to be clarified include the circumstances to be proved in criminal proceedings, criminal and forensic characteristics of a criminal offense. In order to determine the circumstances to be clarified during the investigation of interference in the activities of a law enforcement officer, the author has studied the circumstances to be clarified within the group of criminal offenses related to obstruction of the activities of a law enforcement officer, as well as during the investigation of interference in the activities of a forensic expert. Taking into account the specified scientific provisions, the author has defined a detailed list of circumstances to be clarified during the investigation of interference in the activities of a law enforcement officer. It has been established that the circumstances to be clarified during the interference in the activities of a law enforcement officer include: 1) circumstances related to the criminal offense, namely: time, place, situation and traces of a criminal offense, methods of its commission (preparation, direct commission and concealment), tools and means used during the interference, the scope of procedural costs; circumstances that are the basis for ceasing criminal proceedings; the reasons and conditions that contributed to the commission of a criminal offense; 2) circumstances related to the identity of the victim, including: socio-demographic characteristics of the victim, place of work, position held; official and functional responsibilities, the victim’s belonging to a law enforcement agency during the commission of a criminal offense against him; the type and scope of damage caused to the victim; 3) circumstances related to the identity of the offender, namely: socio-demographic data of the offender, physiological and psychological condition, gender, citizenship, financial status, place of work, the record of criminal conviction and the facts of bringing to administrative liability; the presence of dependent disabled people; the presence of guilt in the form of direct intent, the purpose of the action; circumstances that aggravate or mitigate the punishment of the offender are grounds for releasing from criminal liability or punishment that exclude criminal liability; presence of accomplices.


2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-62
Author(s):  
John Kenedi

The constitutional protections toward crime witnesses in Indonesia are indisputably inevitable. As an effort to uphold justice, Indonesia relies on the formal mechanism of criminal law known as the criminal justice system. The system starts from reports by the police, prosecution by the prosecutor, to the stage of a trial in a court, and execution in a prison. Throughout its development, the criminal justice system seemed to focus more on protecting criminal offenses (criminal oriented) rather than paying attention to the rights of witnesses and victims (witness and victim-oriented). Therefore, the studies that concern the rights of witnesses and victims are highly needed in order to figure out ways to balance the treatment between the suspects/defendants and the witnesses and victims. Through the use of the statue approach and conceptual approach, the positions and the rights of legal protection for witnesses and victims are thoroughly captured and described in this current research. Besides, the factors causing uneven attention and unfair treatment toward crime victims are also specifically identified.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-84
Author(s):  
Akalafikta Jaya ◽  
Triono Eddy ◽  
Alpi Sahari

In the past, the punishment of children was the same as the punishment of adults. This causes the psychological condition of children ranging from investigation, investigation and trial to be disturbed because it is often intimidated by law enforcement agencies. Under these conditions, Law No. 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Justice System was born. One of the reforms in the Child Criminal Justice System Law requires the settlement of a child criminal case by diversion. Based on the results of research that the conception of criminal offenses against children in conflict with the law in Indonesia is different from criminal convictions to adults. Children are given the lightest possible punishment and half of the criminal convictions of adult criminal offenses. That criminal liability for children who are ensnared in a criminal case according to the Law on the Criminal Justice System for Children is still carried out but with different legal sanctions from adults. Criminal imprisonment against children is an ultimumremedium effort, meaning that criminal imprisonment against children is the last legal remedy after there are no other legal remedies that benefit the child. That the concept of enforcement of criminal law against children caught in criminal cases through diversion is in fact not all have applied it. Some criminal cases involving children as the culprit, in court proceedings there are still judges who impose prison sentences on children who are dealing with the law.


FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 128
Author(s):  
Rugun Romaida Hutabarat

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


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document