Heni Siswanto
Universitas Lampung, Indonesia

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Disregarding Visum et Psikiatricum: Reconstructing Criminal Responsibility Assessment in Indonesian Homicide Cases Tarmizi Tarmizi; Heni Siswanto; Muhtadi Muhtadi; Maroni Maroni; Rinaldy Amrullah
DiH: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Volume 22 Nomor 2 Agustus 2026
Publisher : Doctor of Law Study Program Faculty of Law, Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

This study aims to examine the judicial reasoning underlying the exclusion of the Visum et Psikiatricum in Judgment No. 586/Pid.B/2023/PN Tjk, identify the parameters applied in determining the criminal responsibility of a homicide offender, and reconstruct a more comprehensive framework for assessing criminal responsibility under Indonesian criminal law. This normative legal research employs both case and conceptual approaches. Primary legal materials, including statutory regulations and court decisions, were analyzed together with secondary materials derived from criminal law doctrines, forensic psychiatry, and relevant scholarly literature. The data were examined qualitatively using a prescriptive analytical method to assess the conformity of judicial reasoning with theories of criminal responsibility and to formulate an improved assessment model. The findings reveal that the Visum et Psikiatricum was disregarded because the court placed greater weight on the defendant’s behavioral indicators, which were considered to demonstrate awareness, understanding of the consequences of the act, and the capacity for self-control. The parameters applied by the judge encompass cognitive, volitional, and behavioral dimensions. However, these parameters remain implicit, lack standardization, and do not adequately integrate medical findings with legal considerations. This condition reflects a normative gap in the application of Article 44 of the Criminal Code and Articles 38 and 39 of Law No. 1 of 2023. Accordingly, this study proposes a three-dimensional assessment model integrating medical, cognitive, and volitional aspects as a more objective, consistent, and accountable framework for determining criminal responsibility
Reformulating Rechterlijk Pardon in the Criminal Procedure Code: A Comparative Study with the Dutch Criminal Justice System Khaoeirun Nissa; Heni Siswanto; Ahmad Irzal Fardiansyah; Erna Dewi; Zulkarnain Ridlwan; Denys Illiashchuk
Nusantara: Journal of Law Studies Vol. 5 No. 2 (2026): Nusantara: Journal of Law Studies
Publisher : PT. Islamic Research Publiser

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.66325/nusantaralaw.v5i2.351

Abstract

The enactment of Article 54 paragraph (2) of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP) introduces the concept of rechterlijk pardon as a progressive mechanism that enables judges to refrain from imposing criminal sanctions based on humanitarian and justice considerations. However, despite its substantive recognition, the absence of corresponding procedural provisions in the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) has created a normative gap that threatens legal certainty, judicial accountability, and consistency in criminal adjudication. This study addresses three research questions: (1) how rechterlijk pardon is currently positioned within the Indonesian criminal justice system; (2) how the concept is regulated and implemented in the Dutch criminal justice system; and (3) what procedural model should be adopted to reformulate rechterlijk pardon within the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code. Using a normative juridical approach combined with a qualitative comparative method, this research analyses statutory provisions, legal doctrines, scholarly literature, and comparative materials, particularly Article 9a of the Dutch Wetboek van Strafrecht. The findings show that Indonesia has recognised rechterlijk pardon as a progressive instrument for achieving substantive justice, humanity, and proportionality in sentencing; however, its implementation remains vulnerable to legal uncertainty, inconsistent judicial practice, and potential abuse of discretion due to the absence of procedural safeguards. The Dutch model demonstrates that judicial pardon can operate effectively when supported by clear criteria, written judicial reasoning, oversight mechanisms, and accountability standards. This study contributes academically by proposing a contextual reformulation of rechterlijk pardon within the KUHAP, emphasising clear eligibility criteria, mandatory reasoned decisions, monitoring and reporting mechanisms, restorative justice, and Pancasila as the philosophical foundation of Indonesian criminal procedure reform.