Consequences of Regulating the Rechterlijk Pardon Concept Against the Types of Criminal Decisions in Indonesia
Abstract
Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Law has regulated the types of final decision s into 3 (three) namely acquittal decision, decision free from all demands, and criminal decision. Where each type of decision has its own characteristics that distinguish it from other types of criminal decisions. In the next development, the Government of Republic Indonesia seeks to update the provisions of the criminal law by including new concepts in the Criminal Code's Draft (RKUHP). One of the new concepts listed in the Criminal Code's Draft (RKUHP) is the concept of rechterlijk pardon which gives the authority to the judge not to impose actions or impose criminal sanctions on the accused even though criminal acts and mistakes have been proven. After going through a review of the application of the concept in a criminal case, it can be known that the type of decision produced has differences with the types of decisions that have been regulated in Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Law. Therefore, so that the concept of rechterlijk pardon can be applied in criminal cases in the future, it is necessary to add a type of criminal case decision based on the application of the concept of rechterlijk pardon in the form of Guilty Decision Without Conviction.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Book:
Adery Syahputra, Tinjauan Atas Non-Imposing of a Penalty/ Rechterlijk Pardon/ dispensa de pena dalam R KUHP serta Harmonisasinya dengan R KUHAP, Jakarta: Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, 2016.
Amiruddin dan Zainal Asakin. Pengantar Metode Penelitian Hukum, Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada, 2006.
Andi Hamzah, Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia, Jakarta: 2017.
Laden Marpaung, Proses Penanganan Perkara Pidana (Penyelidikan dan Penyidikan), Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2009.
Lilik Mulyadi, Seraut Wajah Putusan Hakim dalam Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia, Bandung: PT Citra Aditya Bakti, 2010.
Muhamad Sadi Is, Kumpulan Hukum Acara Di Indonesia, Malang: 2016.
M.Yahya Harahap, Pembahasan Permasalahan Dan Penerapan KUHAP; Pemeriksaan Sidang Pengadilan, Banding, Kasasi, dan Peninjauan Kembali, Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2012
Syaiful Bakhri, Menyikapi Pembahasan RUU-KUHP, Bandung: makalah disampaikan pada seminar nasional di Universitas Padjajaran Bekerjasama dengan MAHUPIKI, 2016.
Tolib Effendi, Dasar Dasar Hukum Acara Pidana (Perkembangan dan Pembaharuannya Di Indonesia), Malang: Setara Press, 2014.
Journal, Thesis
Anak Agung Gede Wiweka Narendra, I Gusti Bagus Suryawan, dan I Made Minggu Widyantara, “Pertimbangan Hukum terhadap Putusan Lepas Dari Segala Tuntutan Hukum (ontslag van rechtsvervolging)”, Jurnal Konstruksi Hukum 1, no 2 (Oktober 2020); 243-250 doi: https://doi.org/10.22225/jkh.1.2.2595.243-250.
Muhammad Iftar Aryaputra, Pemaafan Hakim dalam Pembaharuan Hukum Pidana Indonesia (Tesis), Depok: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia, 2013.
T.P. Marguery, Unity and diversity of the public prosecutot services in Europe: A Study of the Czech, Dutch, French, and Polish System (Doctoral Tesis), Gronigen: Faculty of law Universitas Gronigen 2008
Legislation:
Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana.
Other
Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional (BPHN), Naskah Akademik Rancangan Undang-Undang tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP), Jakarta: 2009.
Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Rengat Nomor 2/Pid.Sus-Anak/2021/PN Rgt.
Rancangan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (RKUHP versi september 2019).
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v9i7.3834
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2022 International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://ijmmu.com
editor@ijmmu.com
facebook.com/ijmmu
Copyright © 2014-2018 IJMMU. All rights reserved.