scholarly journals RAPUHNYA BENTENG KEADILAN DI INDONESIA (Kajian terhadap kekuasaan kehakiman (peradilan) sebagai benteng keadilan dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana)

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdul Kholiq
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Main Role ◽  
Constitutional Design ◽  
The Supreme Court

Abstrak Penegakan hukum dengan menggunakan sistem peradilan pidana berarti mengimplementasikan bekerjanya dalam setiap tahapan peradilan pidana, yaitu tahapan penyidikan, penuntutan, peradilan dan pelaksanaan putusan. Permasalahan konseptual yang menyangkut struktur penegakan hukum pidana, bersumber dari sistem penegakan hukum yang dibangun berdasarkan desain konstitusional. Pasca amandemen ke III terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945, yang kemudian juga diikuti terbitnya Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 Tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman sebagai peraturan pelaksana, terhadap koreksi pada Kekuasaan Kehakiman. Kekuasaan kehakiman dijalankan dan dipegang oleh badan peradilan, hal ini sesuai dalam teori maupun ketentuan dalam peraturan perundang-undangan. Badan peradilan di Indonesia yang menjalankan kekuasaan kehakiman berdasarkan hasil amandemen Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 adalah Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Konstitusi dan pengadilan-pengadilan tingkat lebih rendah yang di bawah Mahkamah Agung. Ketentuan tersebut juga diatur secara eksplisit di dalam Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 Pasal 24 Ayat (2). Pengadilan selama ini dijadikan sebagai suatu simbolik bagi masyarakat untuk mencapai tujuan-tujuan hukum khususnya keadilan dari permasalahan atau sengketa-sengketa hukum yang harus diselesaikan. Supremasi hukum akan dapat berjalan secara maksimal tatkala komponen-komponen dalam penegakan hukum yang tersistem ke dalam bentuk sistem peradilan pidana yang integral. Dalam penegakan hukum yang juga berhubungan dengan kekuasaan kehakiman, maka peran yang utama yaitu hakim-hakim pengadilan. Kata Kunci: Penegakan Hukum, Kekuasaan Kehakiman, Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Abstract Law enforcement by using the criminal justice system means implementing its work at every stage of criminal justice, namely the stages of investigation, prosecution, trial and implementation of decisions. Conceptual issues concerning the structure of criminal law enforcement are derived from a law enforcement system that is built on constitutional design. After the third amendment to the Constitution of 1945, which was also followed by the issuance of Law Number 48 of 2009 on Concerning Judicial Power as the implementing regulation, against correction to Judicial Power. Judicial power is carried out and held by the judiciary, this is in accordance with the theory and provisions in the legislation. Judicial bodies in Indonesia that exercise judicial authority based on the amendments to the Constitution of 1945 are the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and lower-level courts under the Supreme Court. These provisions are also explicitly regulated in the Constitution of 1945 in Article 24 Paragraph (2). The court has been used as a symbolic for the community to achieve legal objectives, especially justice from problems or legal disputes that must be resolved. The supremacy of law will be able to run maximally when the components in systemic law enforcement are in the form of an integral criminal justice system. In law enforcement which also relates to judicial power, the main role is court judges. Keyword: Law Enforcement, Judicial Power, Criminal Justice System.

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

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 FUNGSI YUDISIAL UNTUK MENJAGA KEMANDIRIAN HAKIM DALAM SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA

to-ra ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 49
Author(s):  
Kraisus Sitanggang
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Political Influence ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
State Law ◽  
The Law

Indonesia is a state law that has been declared in the constitution, as a country that upholds the law, will be established justice agencies to resolve those cases that occur in the community, one of them is the court, the court is part of the criminal justice system, where the court is the place to examine the case, which the judge who became breaker guilty or not a person, as law enforcement, judges should be is independent in deciding a case, where the decision was not impartial and free from political influence and power, and free from bribes though, that the independence of judges independent and impartial influence, it needs to be maintained and protected, the reality in the Indonesian constitution in the constitution in 1945 through an amendment, it has been maintained and is watching her body established the Commission on judicial and law on judicial power, its purpose is enable the independence and freedom of judges in deciding a case, in order to obtain a legal justice, which is guaranteeing protection of the rights of justice seekers and that is where it is said that Indonesia is a country of law.  

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 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document