Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.562
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Perkara: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Dan Politik Jaksa: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum Dan Politik
Berliant Pratiwi
Universitas Sains dan Teknologi Komputer, Semarang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia
Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 3 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
Rekonstruksi Pembuktian Kekerasan Seksual Berbasis Relasi Kuasa untuk Memperkuat Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Korban Methodius Kossay; Berliant Pratiwi
Perkara : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Politik Vol. 4 No. 3 (2026): September: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum dan Politik (PERKARA)
Publisher : Universitas Sains dan Teknologi Komputer

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.51903/gwwrcr67

Abstract

Evidence assessment in sexual violence cases becomes particularly challenging when power relations between perpetrators and victims affect the victims’ ability to resist, report the violence, terminate the relationship, or provide consistent testimony. The problem concerns not only the types of admissible evidence but also how facts and victims’ conduct are interpreted within judicial reasoning. This study aims to examine how power relations affect the construction and assessment of evidence in sexual violence cases and to reconstruct evidentiary parameters that can strengthen legal protection for victims without compromising fair and rational standards of proof. This study employs a normative juridical method using case and gender approaches. Legal materials are analyzed by mapping evidentiary provisions, examining judicial reasoning, and identifying potential gender-based stereotypes in the assessment of victims’ testimony and conduct. The findings indicate that power relations may shape resistance, delayed reporting, continued communication or relationships with perpetrators, and the form and consistency of victims’ testimony. These circumstances should therefore not automatically be interpreted as undermining victim credibility without considering the relational structure, forms of control, threats, dependency, and the configuration of other supporting evidence. This study proposes a reconstruction of evidentiary parameters from a victim-credibility-centered approach toward a power-relation-sensitive assessment of evidence. The reconstruction positions power relations as an evidentiary context connecting the victim’s position, the perpetrator’s patterns of conduct, the victim’s responses, supporting evidence, and the fulfillment of criminal elements, while maintaining the applicable standard of proof and the rights of the accused.
Strategi Argumentasi Jaksa dalam Perkara Kompleks Analisis Wacana Kritis terhadap Teks Tuntutan Maulana Fahmi Idris; Berliant Pratiwi; Althe Serafim Kriswandaru
Jaksa : Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Politik Vol. 4 No. 4 (2026): OKTOBER: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Politik (JAKSA)
Publisher : Universitas Sains dan Teknologi Komputer

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.51903/4x61a839

Abstract

  This study examines prosecutorial argumentation strategies in complex criminal cases using a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) framework. Drawing on a corpus of 45 prosecutorial indictments from 2020–2025, the research investigates how language, intertextuality, and social context interact to construct legal legitimacy. The findings reveal that prosecutorial texts are not merely descriptive legal documents but function as strategic discursive instruments. At the micro level, linguistic features such as modal certainty, complex syntactic structures, and evaluative diction are systematically employed to construct an appearance of legal objectivity and certainty. At the meso level, intertextuality plays a central role in reinforcing argumentation through the integration of indictments, evidence, and judicial references, forming a coherent narrative structure. At the macro level, the study demonstrates that social context, particularly public exposure, significantly influences the intensity and moral tone of prosecutorial discourse. The study identifies four dominant argumentation strategies—framing, legitimacy construction, persuasion, and simplification—that operate in an integrated manner to influence judicial reasoning. Based on these findings, the research proposes an Integrated Prosecutorial Discourse Model, highlighting the interaction between textual, discursive, and social dimensions in shaping legal argumentation. Theoretically, this study extends the application of CDA by incorporating argumentation strategies as a central analytical component in legal discourse. Empirically, it provides a broader analytical generalization through a multi-document corpus. Practically, the findings contribute to improving transparency and critical awareness in prosecutorial practices. Overall, this study demonstrates that legal legitimacy is not solely derived from normative frameworks but is also constructed through strategic discursive processes.
Pola Konsistensi Tuntutan Jaksa dalam Perkara Korporasi: Analisis Data Putusan Berbasis Machine Learning Berliant Pratiwi; Rengga Kusuma Putra
Jaksa : Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Politik Vol. 4 No. 3 (2026): JULI: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Politik (JAKSA)
Publisher : Universitas Sains dan Teknologi Komputer

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.51903/v8666444

Abstract

The increasing complexity of corporate crime has heightened the need for consistent prosecutorial practices to ensure legal certainty, fairness, and accountability within the criminal justice system. However, empirical studies examining the consistency of prosecutorial demands in corporate criminal cases remain limited, particularly those employing data-driven analytical approaches. This study aims to analyze the consistency patterns of prosecutors' demands in corporate criminal cases using court decision data and a Machine Learning approach. The research employed a quantitative design based on data-driven legal analytics, utilizing corporate criminal court decisions as the unit of analysis. A Random Forest algorithm was developed to identify demand patterns based on case characteristics, including the type of offense, financial loss, corporate benefit, management involvement, recovery efforts, and aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The findings indicate that the proposed model achieved high predictive performance, demonstrating that prosecutorial demands generally follow consistent patterns influenced primarily by the magnitude of financial loss, the type of offense, and the economic benefits obtained by the corporation. These findings highlight the potential of Machine Learning to provide an objective framework for evaluating prosecutorial consistency and supporting evidence-based prosecutorial policies. This study contributes to the advancement of computational legal studies by introducing a data-driven framework for assessing prosecutorial discretion in corporate criminal cases and offers practical implications for improving transparency, accountability, and consistency in prosecution practices.
Co-Authors Althe Serafim Kriswandaru Maulana Fahmi Idris Methodius Kossay Rengga Kusuma Putra