Applying the Straftoemetingsleiddraad in a Corruption Case in Indonesia

Yanuaris Frans M., Abdul Rachmad Budiono, Abdul Madjid, Bambang Sugiri

Abstract


Criminal Disparity in a corruption case is unacceptable in philosophical reasoning, sociologically, or even from the perspective of legal objectives, which in theory and factual facts lead to judicial caprise and the presumption of judicial corruption in the verdict, where it will adversely affect the fair justice of the convicted or for the Indonesian people as victims of corruption. Criminal Law gives alternative in order to give pressure the criminal disparity through straftoemetingsleiddraad or guidance of sentencing of the judges in prosecuting without violating the principle of freedom of judges, either through the Indonesian Supreme Court Regulations for now as ius constitutum, or through the legislation process of the Anti-Corruption Act for the future as ius constituendium.


Keywords


Disparity; Straftoemetingsleiddraad; Justice

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ali, Achmad and Wiwie Heryani. (2012). Menjelajahi Kajian Empiris Terhadap Hukum, Cetakan ke-2. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.

Darmodiharjo, Darji and Shidarta. (2006). Pokok-Pokok Filsafat Hukum, Cetakan ke-6. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Djunaedy, Eddy. Beberapa Pedoman Pemidanaan dan Pengamatan Narapidana.

Edelhertz, Herbert. (1970). The Nature Impact and The Prosecution of White Collar Crime, US. Washington D.C: Departement of Justice.

Fuady, Munir. (2004). Bisnis Kotor (Anatomi Kejahatan Kerah Putih). Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.

Harkrsnowo, Harkristuti. (2003). “Rekonstruksi Konsep Pemidanaan: Suatu Gugatan terhadap Proses Legislasi dan Pemidanaan di Indonesia”, in the KHN Newsletter magazine, April 2003 Edition, Jakarta: KHN.

Kelsen, Hans. (2010). Pengantar Teori Hukum. Bandung: Penerbit Nusa Media.

Korupsi. (2002). Good Governance Dan Komisi Anti Korupsi Di Indonesia, Jakarta: National Legal Development Agency of the Indonesian Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.

Muladi & Barda Nawawi Arief. (2005). Teori-teori dan Kebijakan Pidana, Cetakan ke-3. Bandung: Alumni.

___________________________. (2010). Teori-teori dan kebijakan pidana. Bandung: PT. Alumni.

Rahardjo, Satjipto. (2006). Membedah Hukum Progresif (bangsa menuju bunuh diri). Jakarta: Kompas.

________________. (2016). Ilmu Hukum Di Tengah Arus Perubahan. Malang: Surya Pena Gemilang.

Rato, Dominikus. (2010). Filsafat Hukum, Mencari, Menemukan, Dan Memahami Hukum. Surabaya: LaksBang Yustisia.

Setyono. (2009). Kejahatan Korporasi, Analisa Viktimologis Dan Pertanggungjawaban Korporasi Dalam Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Malang: Banyu media.

Sudirdja, Eddy Djunaidi Karna. (1984). Standar Pemidanaan.

Supreme Court Supervisory Agency RI, Ma 23, 2013, https://bawas.mahkamahagung.go.id/compo nent/content/article/3-artikel-khusus-badan-pengawas/323-korupsi-sebagai-extra-ordinary-crime-dan-tugas-yuridis-para-hakim, accesed on March 29, 2019.

Syamsudin, M. (2012). Budaya Hukum Hakim. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v7i3.1595

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU) ISSN 2364-5369
https://ijmmu.com
editor@ijmmu.com
dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu
facebook.com/ijmmu
Copyright © 2014-2018 IJMMU. All rights reserved.