scholarly journals Analisis Penegakan Hukum terhadap Tindak Pidana Politik Uang dalam Pemilihan Kepala Daerah ditinjau dari Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 2016

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-351
Author(s):  
Ahmad Parlindungan
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
General Election ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
General Elections

Regional Head Elections or abbreviated as (Pilkada), fraudulencies are often occurs as seen in one of the court verdict no. 381 /Pid.Sus/2018.PN,Psp. About money politics. Money politics is a from of giving or promising to bribe someone with the intention so thet the person does not carry out his righs in certain way during the general election. The regional head election is a main momentum of democracy in the implementation of each general election be held every pair of candidates expects no fraudulent acts carried out by the candidate pairs in order to create a conducive regional head general election. Therefor money politic perpetrators can be held accountable for their action as is have been regulated in Law No.10 of 2016 concerning the second amendement to Law No. 1 of 2015 concerning the second amendment to law number 1 of 2014 concerning the election of regional heads, while there are 25 types of criminal acts for the election of regional heads, while there are 5 articles concerning on criminal acts of general election in KUHP. Pilkada violations are divided into there, which are administrative violation, criminal violations of money politics, and disputes over the result of general elections in this case the election of regional heads. Administrative violations were reported to the electoral commission and forwarded to KPUD. Violations of general election criminal proceeds with the criminal justice system (police, public prosecutor, judiciary) in accordance with the criminal procedure code, preceded by report from thev public or candidate pairs to the election supervisory committee no later than seven days after the report is received, while disputer over the resoult of the regional head elections originally handled by the supreme court was handed over to the constitional court.

scholarly journals Policy Formulations of the Fisheries Criminal Act: An Investigation of the Authority of the Criminal Justice System in Indonesia

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 165
Author(s):  
Deassy J. A. Hehanussa ◽  
Koesno Adi ◽  
Masruchin Ruba’i ◽  
Pridja Djatmika
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Civil Servant ◽  
Maritime Security ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
National Police

Law enforcement implementation of fisheries criminal act especially for investigation based on Article 73 (1) of Law No. 45 of 2009 is executed by Fishery Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), Investigator of Indonesian Navy officer and/or Investigator of Indonesian National Police. This investigation authority is called as attribution authority meaning that the authority is granted by the order of law. This regulation grants the same authority to these three institutions to investigate and submit their investigation report to public prosecutor without any cohesive system in its implementation. If it is linked to Law No. 8 of 1981 as an illustration of criminal justice system of Indonesia which is referred as the basis of common and specific criminal law enforcement, it emerges juridical weakness as a consequence of regulation inconsistency including conflict of norm between Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and Fisheries Act. This inconsistency emerges conflict of authority among those investigators and emerges law indeterminacy. Hence, reformulate investigation authority of fisheries criminal act needs to be conducted along with paying attention on waters territory of Indonesia upon Law No. 6 of 1996 about Waters Territory of Indonesia despite law enforcement mechanism which had to be enforced corporately. This study result concludes that inconsistency of investigation authority formulation in fisheries criminal act in criminal justice system not only emerges fuzziness of norm but also conflict of norm between Law No. 8 of 1981 about Criminal Procedure Code and Law No. 45 of 2009. This emerges because there is an overlapping of investigation authority among 3 institutions, i.e., Fishery Civil Servant, Indonesian Navy and the Police. Formation team of Indonesian Maritime Security Coordinating Board (Bakorkamla) only has an authority as coordinating function. Hence, to maximize the law enforcement in the ocean, function of Indonesian Maritime Security Coordinating Board should be improved as a coordinator of law enforcement in ocean territory of Indonesia.

scholarly journals The State’s Economic Protection by the Criminal Justice System Corruption: A Case Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-69
Author(s):  
Kamri Ahmad ◽  
Hambali Thalib ◽  
Mursyid Muchtra
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Nickel Mining ◽  
Financial Losses

This study aims to identify efforts to protect the state's economic security through the criminal justice system in the case of nickel mining in Malapulu Block, Kabaena Island, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. The Supreme Court has decided the case with decision number 2633 K/Pid/Sus/2018. This research was conducted with a qualitative approach through analysis of the description of the prosecutor's indictment and the judge's decision. The results obtained in the study show that the KPK Prosecutor made a mistake by withdrawing the appeal that had been made. This condition results in the lack of consideration made by judges in decision making. Secondly, legal experts do not provide a difference in the meaning of economic and financial losses for the state in judex factie and judex jurist. Third, the indictment by the public prosecutor has not described the form of crime committed as an extraordinary crime. Fourth, there is negligence in the corporate sentence.

scholarly journals Threaten Sentencing Enhancement, Coerce Plea, (Wash, Rinse,) Repeat

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-302
Author(s):  
Wes Reber Porter
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Trojan Horse ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Clean Break ◽  
The Individual

Our American criminal justice system is too often described as broken. It was not a clean break in a single, isolated location. Instead, our criminal justice system suffers from many, many little nicks, bumps, and bruises at the hands of its keepers. The evolution of sentencing enhancements within our criminal justice system represents the latest nagging, reoccurring injury. In the ultimate Trojan horse to criminal defendants, the Supreme Court sought to protect the individual rights of the accused with its recent decisions on sentencing enhancements. But at the hands of lawmakers, the judiciary, and prosecutors, criminal defendants suffer more. Our criminal justice system also suffers from practices related to sentencing enhancements and the resulting wave of wrongful convictions by guilty plea.

scholarly journals Eighteen Is Not a Magic Number: Why the Eighth Amendment Requires Protection for Youth Aged Eighteen to Twenty-Five

2020 ◽  
pp. 807
Author(s):  
Tirza Mullin
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Magic Number ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Diminished Capacity ◽  
Eighth Amendment ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Eighth Amendment protects a criminal defendant’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. This Note argues that any punishment of eighteen- to twenty-five-year-olds is cruel and unusual without considering their youthfulness at every stage of the criminal process, and that it is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment for these youths to be automatically treated as fully-developed adults. This Note will explore in depth how juveniles differ from adults, both socially and scientifically, and how the criminal justice system fails every youth aged eighteen- to twenty-five by subjecting them to criminal, rather than juvenile, court without considering their youthfulness and diminished capacity. This Note proposes three reforms that, implemented together, aim to remedy this Eighth Amendment violation. First, the Supreme Court should apply the seminal cases of Miller, Roper, and Graham to eighteen- to twenty-five-year-olds. Second, all states should extend the age of juvenile jurisdiction to twenty-five, processing offenders twenty-five and younger through the juvenile system accordingly. Finally, every actor in the system—including courts, lawyers, and legislatures—should label eighteen- to twenty-five-year-olds as “youth” and consider their age at every stage of the criminal system.

scholarly journals THE RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED TO DEFENCE UNDER THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN MALAYSIA

2022 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-58
Author(s):  
Mohd Safri Mohammed Na’aim ◽  
Ramalinggam Rajamanickam ◽  
Rohaida Nordin
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Right

Background and Purpose: Under the criminal justice system, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. It is worth noting that a criminal trial is not one-sided; it also allows the accused to raise his defence to prove his innocence. The research aims to analyse the right of the accused to raise a defence and when the defence should be raised in a criminal trial process in Malaysia.   Methodology: This research adopts a legal research approach involving a detailed analysis of the relevant legal provisions, case law and scholarly writing related to this area.   Findings: The research found that the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) (Act 593) is silent as to when the defence should be raised. That being said, with reference to the Supreme Court’s case of Lin Lian Chen v. Public Prosecutor [1992] 1 CLJ 285 (Rep), the accused should introduce his defence at the earliest stage as possible. Failing this may give rise to the presumption that the defence raised was a mere invention. Although the principle has been regarded as a law in raising defence, there are still cases where the accused did not present the defence at an earlier stage.   Contributions: This research contributes to the corpus of legal knowledge of criminal defence, particularly on raising criminal defence in a criminal trial with the aim of providing better protection for the accused in the criminal justice system. Keywords: Criminal justice system, criminally liable, defence, right of the accused, & criminal trial.   Cite as: Mohammed Na’aim, M. S., Rajamanickam, R., & Nordin, R. (2022). The right of an accused to defence under the criminal justice system in Malaysia. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 7(1), 43-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol7iss1pp43-58

scholarly journals Handling Of Crime Case Relating To The Land By A Police Investigator

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 487
Author(s):  
Sigit Prihanto
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Regulatory Policies ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Effectiveness And Efficiency

Handling the criminal case related to the land both by investigators, prosecutors and judges must advance the exact seat keperdataannya legal status. The handling of criminal cases the object of land should be done carefully and cautiously through the understanding of the anatomy of the case and from the evidence of civil owned by the parties. It aims to prevent the engineering / coercion case which is basically a pure civil dispute, eventually used as criminal assault. To deal with this phenomenon, law enforcement agencies have issued policies on formulatif / legislation containing about pending examination of crime related / object land. At the level of the Supreme Court there is a Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 1956 and the Supreme Court Decision Number 628K / Pid / 1984. At the level of the Attorney General has issued Circular Letter of the Attorney General for General Crimes No. B-230 / E / EJP / 01/2013. While in the police has been no regulatory policies relating thereto. However, in practice the investigators make policies and regulations issued by the Supreme Court and the Attorney General as guidance in handling the criminal case related to the land. It is for the sake of effectiveness and efficiency in the framework of an integrated criminal justice system. While in the police has been no regulatory policies relating thereto. However, in practice the investigators make policies and regulations issued by the Supreme Court and the Attorney General as guidance in handling the criminal case related to the land. It is for the sake of effectiveness and efficiency in the framework of an integrated criminal justice system. While in the police has been no regulatory policies relating thereto. However, in practice the investigators make policies and regulations issued by the Supreme Court and the Attorney General as guidance in handling the criminal case related to the land. It is for the sake of effectiveness and efficiency in the framework of an integrated criminal justice system.Keywords: Offense; Land; Police.

scholarly journals Litigating in the Shadow of Innocence

2006 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence C. Marshall
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Supreme Court

In 1976, the Supreme Court of the United States, allowing optimism to trump experience, accepted various states’ assurances that new death penalty procedures the states had then recently adopted would avoid the vices that had led the Court to strike down the death penalty in 1972. Now, some thirty years later, a body of evidence has developed demonstrating that this experiment has failed—that the problems of arbitrariness, racism and propensity to error are endemic to the criminal justice system (particularly with regard to capital punishment) and cannot be cured by what Justice Blackmun called “tinker[ing] with the machinery of death.” Despite the Court’s best intentions, the death penalty procedures of the 1980s and 1990s and the first half of this decade reflect little if any significant improvement over the condemned pre-1972 systems.

scholarly journals PROBLEMATIKA PENINJAUAN KEMBALI DALAM SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DAN PASCA SEMA RI No. 7 TAHUN 2014 (Suatu Analisa Yuridis Dan Asas-Asas Dalam Hukum Peradilan Pidana)

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 106
Author(s):  
Seno Wibowo Gumbira
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process

Abstrak Permasalahan upaya hukum luar biasa pada Peninjauan Kembali khususnya pada proses peradilan pidana di Indonesia Pasca Putusan judicial review Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 34/PPU-XI/2013 dan SEMA RI No 7 Tahun 2014 yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Agung RI sama-sama memiliki permasalahan yuridis dan bertentangan dengan asas-asas baik dalam lingkup sistem peradilan pidana dan asas ilmu perundang-undangan di Indonesia, asas tersebut meliputi asas ne bis in idem, asas peradilan cepat, sederhana dan biaya ringan, asas litis finiri oportet, dan sedangkan pada ilmu perundang-undangan asas lex superior derogate legi inferior. Dapat juga dikatakan bahwa judicial review Mahkamah Konstitusi berpotensi merusak pilar hukum karena jika menyatakan suatu ketentuan hukum hanya satu undang-undang saja, yang mana peraturan perundang-undangan yang 1 bertentangan dengan peraturan perundang-undang lainnya seperti contoh Putusan MK Nomor 34/PPU-XI/2013 pada Pasal 268 ayat 3 Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 dinyatakan tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum tetap tentang Peninjauan Kembali hanya dilakukan 1 kali saja, sedangkan pada Pasal 24 ayat 2 Undang-Undang No. 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman dengan Pasal 66 ayat 1 Undang-Undang No. 3 Tahun 2009 tentang Mahkamah Agung, kedua instrument hukum tersebut menyatakan bahwa pengajuan Peninjauan Kembali hanya dapat diajukan 1 kali. Solusi agar tidak menimbulkan problematika adalah bahwa  Mahkamah Agung tidak perlu menerbitkan SEMA RI No 7 Tahun 2014 tersebut, cukup menggunakan Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman dan Undang-Undang Mahkamah Agung yang menyatakan Peninjauan kembali hanya 1 kali, selain itu perlu optimalisasi pembuktian dalam proses peradilan pidana oleh semua pihak. Kata Kunci: judicial review, Peninjauan Kembali, Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Abstract Problems of extraordinary legal remedy on Reconsideration, especially in the criminal justice process in Indonesia following the Ruling of judicial review of the Constitutional Court Number 34 / PPU-XI / 2013 and SEMA Decree No. 7 of 2014 issued by the Supreme Court had the same problem  juridical in contradictory with the principles both within the criminal justice system and the principle of the science of law in Indonesia, those principles include the principle of ne bis in idem, the principle of justice which one quick, simple and low cost, the principle of litis finiri oportet, It is on the principle of lex superior derogate legi inferior. It can also be said that the judicial review of the Constitutional Court has the potential to undermine the pillars of legal systems as when stating a legal provision is only base on one law, in which is in fact the legislation is incontracdictory with other laws such as of Constitutional Court Decision No. 34 / PPU-XI / 2013 on Article 268 paragraph 3 of Law No. 8 of 1981 that have no binding legal force, meanwhile in Article 24 paragraph 2 of Law No. 48 Year 2009 regarding Judicial Power with Article 66 paragraph 1 of Law No. 3 of 2009 on the Supreme Court, both legal instrument states that the filing of a judicial review can only be submitted one time. A solution that does not cause the problems is that the Supreme Court did not need to issue SEMA Decree No. 7 of 2014 the court simple use the Law of Judicial Power and the Law of the Supreme Court which states Reconsideration should be only one time in addition to the necessary optimize evidence of proof in the criminal justice process by all Parties. Keywords: judicial review, Reconsideration, the Criminal Justice System

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document