Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Konsensus: Jurnal Ilmu Pertahanan, Hukum dan Ilmu Komunikasi
Juliarman Siahaan
Unknown Affiliation
Social Sciences

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

 1 
Analisis Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Pelaku Pencurian dengan Pemberatan yang Dilakukan Secara Bersama-Sama : Studi Putusan Nomor 880/Pid.B/2025/PN Kis Juliarman Siahaan; Muhammad Hizbullah
Konsensus : Jurnal Ilmu Pertahanan, Hukum dan Ilmu Komunikasi Vol. 3 No. 4 (2026): Agustus : Konsensus : Jurnal Ilmu Pertahanan, Hukum dan Ilmu Komunikasi
Publisher : Asosiasi Peneliti Dan Pengajar Ilmu Sosial Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62383/konsensus.v3i4.1870

Abstract

Aggravated theft committed jointly is a crime against property subject to heavier penalties under Article 363 of the Criminal Code. Decision Number 880/Pid.B/2025/PN Kis is relevant because Defendant Angga Afraga Nasrullah committed the theft with April, who is on the wanted list, with unequal roles, while the element of “committed together” was not separately explained in the judge’s considerations. This study analyzes the criminal responsibility of perpetrators of jointly committed aggravated theft in the decision. It uses normative juridical research with descriptive-analytical, statutory, and case approaches. Secondary data, consisting of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, were collected through literature and document studies and analyzed qualitatively. The results show that aggravated theft committed jointly is regulated through Article 362 as the principal offense, Article 363 paragraphs (1) and (2) as aggravating provisions, and Article 55 as the participation provision. The defendant fulfilled the elements of criminal responsibility and qualified as a co-perpetrator (medepleger), although his role differed from April’s. The judge’s considerations were generally consistent with applicable criminal law provisions, but did not explicitly describe the element of joint participation or Article 55 in judicial reasoning. Therefore, future decisions should clearly explain participation to strengthen overall legal certainty and consistency
Co-Authors Muhammad Hizbullah