scholarly journals MARGINAL NOTES TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE ON THE HEARING FOR THE IMPOSITION OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS

2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-28
Author(s):  
Emir Ćorović ◽  

The article refers to the hearing for imposing a criminal sanction, as a simplified procedural form provided by the Serbian Criminal Procedure Code. It is an institute which in comparative legislation is usually called a penal order. The paper critically considers the regulation of this procedural form, and at the end are given some proposals de lege ferenda.

TEME ◽  
2017 ◽  
pp. 1441
Author(s):  
Дарко Димовски ◽  
Миомира Костић ◽  
Иван Милић

Compulsory psychiatric treatment and confinement in a medical institution is one of the security measures that may be ordered for the offender in the criminal procedure and it is also the only criminal sanction of indefinite length. After the sentence is pronounced the execution of the measure follows. The execution of criminal sanctions is regulated by the Law on Execution of Criminal Sanctions, which remains vague in regard to this measure. The authors of this work attempt to find an answer to the seemingly simple but in fact very complicated question: where is this measure to be executed?


Temida ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasa Mrvic-Petrovic

The author is particularly emphasizing peculiarities of the provision on community service as a main penalty (which is foreseen together with the fine and the prison). This solution requires not only the profound regulations in the Law on the execution of the criminal sanctions, but also a careful creation of the by-laws. In the paper, particular attention is paid to the new solutions in the Law on the execution of the criminal sanctions, which aim is to enable the implementation of the community service and the conditional sentence with the protective surveillance. The author states that previous changes of the Criminal Procedure Code, which introduced the principle of opportunity in prosecuting, made a basis for taking victim?s interests related to the redress more into account while starting the prosecution. However, the possibility of using the redress as a basis for the elimination/diversion of the criminal procedure is still not used in an appropriate way in the practice.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 938
Author(s):  
Rifki Yuditya Saputra ◽  
Sugandi Ishak

Decency crimes are interpreted as an act that violates courtesy, politeness, order, customs which can result in the creator being convicted. A Military who commits a crime other than being enforced by the Criminal Procedure Code also applies the KUHP because the KUHPM is a specialist lex from the KUHP. The moin prblem in this research is How is the application of Article 281 of the KUHP with the principle of Lex Specialis Generali Deregate about decency crimes committed by the Military ?, Can criminal penalties be applied to members of the military who commit decency crimes ?. Type of normative juridical law research. Basically the Criminal Procedure Code is a legal provision that regulates a military about which actions constitute a violation or crime or is a prohibition or necessity and is given a threat in the form of criminal sanctions against violators. The imposition of punishment for the military that commits a crime is the existence of an additional criminal which is military in nature. And in that case whether criminal offenses can be applied to members of the military who commit decency acts. The reasons for the existence of the KUHPM are lex specialis of the KUHP even though in the KUHP as stipulated in Article 52 concerning the weighting of criminal threats, the criminal threat stipulated in the KUHP is still felt to not fulfill a sense of justice for TNI members. Therefore, it needs to be regulated in the KUHPM specifically to regulate specific matters.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-260
Author(s):  
Kadek Agus Indra Ana Putra ◽  
I Nyoman Gede Sugiartha ◽  
Luh Putu Suryani

The criminal act of embezzlement and fraud committed by deducting the Covid-19 social assistance funds, specifically the provisions in article 372 of the Criminal Code. Meanwhile, fraud is regulated in Article 378 of the Criminal Code. This research focuses on criminal or legal sanctions against the perpetrators of cutting Covid-19 social assistance funds based on the law, namely the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHP). The purpose of this research is to regulate legal sanctions against perpetrators of Covid-19 social assistance fund cutters. It applies the normative legal method by using a conceptual and a case approach.. The sources of legal materials used are primary, secondary and tertiary sources of law. The technique of collecting legal materials is done by recording, quoting, reading, and summarizing the literature related to the formulation of the problem which is then analyzed systematically. The result of the research shows that the criminal sanctions against the perpetrators of cutting Covid-19 social assistance funds based on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHP), are regulated in article 372 of the Criminal Code for embezzlement, while fraud is subject to article 378 of the Criminal Code. The perpetrator was charged in accordance with Article 372 regarding embezzlement and Article 378 of the Criminal Code regarding the criminal act of fraud.


Author(s):  
Bambang Waluyo ◽  

There are various criminal acts or tax violations that can be punished to criminal sanctions. Hence, by the publication of the Criminal Procedure Code, abbreviated as KUHAP, a pretrial is formed to maintain the orderliness in the investigation and protect the suspect against the actions of investigators and public prosecutors that violate the law and harm the suspect. This research aims to find out and examine normatively the pretrial institution that has the authority to examine and adjudicate the application for termination the investigations submitted by the suspect. Also, to determine juridical considerations as the basis of the petition for the pretrial authority cases against the applications for termination of investigations submitted by the suspect. This research is a normative juridical research. The conclusion is obtained that pretrial is the authority of the district court to examine and make decision according to the method regulated in this law, regarding the legality of an arrrest and / or at the request of the suspect or his family or other parties on the power of the suspect and the legality of the termination of investigations or prosecution on requests for the sake of upholding law and justice. Furthermore, based on Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 4 section (2) of Law No 48/2009 concerning on Judicial Power, Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 4 section (2) concerning on Judicial Power that give the suspect or defendant the right so that his fate is not suspended and obtains legal certainty.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 75-80
Author(s):  
Aleksandr V. Fedorov ◽  

The article is dedicated to a review of the laws on criminal liability of legal entities of a partially recognized state, the Republic of Kosovo. Its main acts are the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kosovo, the special Law on the Liability of Legal Entities for Criminal Offenses and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kosovo, which came into force on January 1, 2013. The publication reviews statutory resolutions allowing considering a legal entity a criminal liability subject; pays attention to the fact that legal entities in the Republic of Kosovo may be brought to criminal liability for any actions acknowledged as crimes by the national criminal laws with no exceptions; specifies articles of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kosovo, provisions of which are applied to bringing legal entities to criminal liability; reviews such criminal sanction types applicable to legal entities as a fi ne, liquidation of a legal entity, property forfeiture; analyzes circumstances considered at punishment imposition and the conditions for release from punishment. The author notes the criminal procedure peculiarities of bringing legal entities to liability.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 267
Author(s):  
Ach. Tahir ◽  
Mahrus Ali ◽  
Muhammad Arif Setiawan

<p>This paper is aimed at analyzing the concepts and parameters to determine an act as a bribery and gratuity in the Anti-Corruption Law and court cases.  This involved the application of the doctrinal legal research to understand these differences. The results of this study showed that bribery requires a meeting of mind between the bribe givers and bribe recipients which is not found in gratuity. The reporting mechanism and the reversal burden of proof do not apply to bribery while Operation Catching Hand does not apply to gratuity due to its inability to satisfy the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Criminal sanctions are also imposed on both the giver and the recipient of a bribe while the act of a giver in gratuity is not considered as a criminal offense. The study also found that the court failed to apply these essential differences.</p>


Jurnal Hukum ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 1592
Author(s):  
Hanafi Amrani

AbstrakArtikel ini membahas dua permasalahan pokok: pertama, kriteria yang digunakan oleh pembentuk undang-undang di bidang politik dalam menetapkan suatu perbuatan sebagai perbuatan pidana (kriminalisasi); dan kedua, fungsi sanksi pidana dalam undang-undang di bidang politik. Terkait dengan kriminalisasi, undang-undang di bidang politik yang termasuk ke dalam hukum administrasi, maka pertimbangan dari pembuat undang-undang tentu saja tidak sekedar kriminalisasi sebagaimana diatur dalam ketentuan hukum pidana dalam arti sebenarnya. Hal tersebut disebabkan adanya pertimbangan-pertimbangan tertentu. Pertama, perbuatan yang dilarang dalam hukum pidana administrasi lebih berorientasi pada perbuatan yang bersifat mala prohibita, sedangkan dalam ketentuan hukum pidana yang sesungguhnya berorientasi pada perbuatan yang bersifat mala in se. Kedua, sebagai konsekuensi dari adanya penggolongan dua kategori kejahatan tersebut, maka pertimbangan yang dijadikan acuan juga akan berbeda. Untuk yang pertama (mala prohibita), sanksi pidana itu dibutuhkan untuk menjamin ditegakkannya hukum administrasi tersebut. Dalam hal ini sanksi pidana berfungsi sebagai pengendali dan pengontrol tingkah laku individu untuk mencapai suatu keadaan yang diinginkan. Sedangkan untuk yang kedua (mala in se), fungsi hukum pidana dan sanksi pidana lebih berorientasi pada melindungi dan mempertahankan nilai-nilai moral yang tertanam di masyarakat tempat di mana hukum itu diberlakukan atau ditegakkan. Kata Kunci: Kebijakan, Kriminalisasi, Undang-Undang PolitikThis article discusses two main problems: firstly, the criteria used by the legislators in the field of politics in determining an act as a criminal act (criminalization); secondly, the function of criminal sanctions in legislation in the field of politics. Associated with criminalization, legislation in the field of politics that is included in administrative law, the consideration of the legislators of course not just criminalization as stipulated in the provisions of criminal law in the true sense. This is due to certain considerations. Firstly, the act which is forbidden in the administration of criminal law is more oriented to act is malum prohibitum offences, whereas in actual criminal law provisions in the act are mala in se offences. Secondly, as a consequence of the existence of two categories of classification of the crime, then consideration will also vary as a reference. For the first (mala prohibita), criminal sanctions are needed to ensure the enforcement of the administrative law. In this case the criminal sanction serves as controller and controlling the behavior of individuals to achieve a desired state. As for the second (mala in se), the function of criminal law and criminal sanctions is more oriented to protect and maintain the moral values that are embedded in a society where the law was enacted or enforced.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document