Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Multidiciplinary Output Research for Actual and International Issue (Morfai Journal)
Abel Aprianti
Universitas Kolaka Sembilan Belas November
Religion Agriculture, Biological Sciences & Forestry Arts Humanities Chemical Engineering, Chemistry & Bioengineering Civil Engineering, Building, Construction & Architecture Computer Science & IT Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Energy Engineering Environmental Science Health Professions Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Library & Information Science Materials Science & Nanotechnology Social Sciences Other

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

Found 1 Documents
Search

 1 
LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGE'S FORGIVENESS BASED ON ARTICLE 54 PARAGRAPH (2) OF LAW NUMBER 1 OF 2023 (STUDY OF DECISION NUMBER 22/PID.B/2026/PN LSS) Abel Aprianti; Basrawi; Jusafri
Multidiciplinary Output Research For Actual and International Issue (MORFAI) Vol. 6 No. 6 (2026): Multidiciplinary Output Research For Actual and International Issue
Publisher : RADJA PUBLIKA

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

Abstract

Purpose: This study examines the implementation of judicial pardon (rechterlijk pardon) under Article 54 paragraph (2) of Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) in Decision Number 22/Pid.B/2026/PN Lss, and evaluates its implications for the objectives of punishment under Articles 51 to 53 of the same Law. Research Design and Methodology: This research uses a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, analyzing the court decision and related statutory and doctrinal materials through deductive legal analysis. Findings and Discussion: The judge's considerations in Decision Number 22/Pid.B/2026/PN Lss reflects an attempt to apply rechterlijk pardon by weighing the minor nature of the offense, the personal circumstances of the offender, and considerations of justice and humanity, although, when tested against the parameters later formulated in Supreme Court Regulation Number 3 of 2026 and Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 1 of 2026, the reasoning still requires strengthening, particularly in articulating which normative basis under Article 54 paragraph (2) was actually relied upon. Implications: The application of judicial pardon in this decision supports the restorative orientation of the national Criminal Code, but consistency with the objectives of punishment under Articles 51 to 53 needs to be reinforced through clearer sentencing guidelines for judges.
Co-Authors Basrawi Jusafri