Sembiring, Eddy Daulatta
Unknown Affiliation

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

KEWENANGAN HAKIM MELAKUKAN PENAHANAN TERHADAP TERDAKWA YANG DALAM PERKARA SEBELUMNYA KEBERATAN TERDAKWA/PENASIHAT HUKUM DITERIMA Susilo, Erwin; Sembiring, Eddy Daulatta
Jurnal Yuridis Vol 11 No 1 (2024): Jurnal Yuridis
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35586/jyur.v11i1.7271

Abstract

In cases where the objection raised by the Defendant/Legal Advisor is accepted, the Defendant must be released from detention, allowing the Public Prosecutor to initiate a fresh prosecution with an amended indictment. Challenges arise during re-prosecution concerning the authority of the District Court Judge to order detention. This research adopts a normative legal approach. The findings indicate that, firstly, the District Court Judge lacks the authority to detain the Defendant, as the release from detention resulted solely from an error by the Public Prosecutor in indictment preparation. Re-detention by the District Court Judge is deemed a violation of the presumption of innocence and the principle of equality before the law. Secondly, future reforms to the Criminal Procedure Code should encompass provisions for the release of the Defendant from detention upon acceptance of objection, coupled with a confirmation of the District Court Judge's non-authorization to detain in the subsequent case. This study recommends a reform of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) to enhance legal certainty regarding the detention of the Defendant in subsequent cases. Keywords: Indictment, Objection, Detention, Public Prosecutor, and Defendant.
Penerapan Teori Pada Hakikatnya Dalam Menafsirkan Tindak Pidana Narkotika Susilo, Erwin; Sembiring, Eddy Daulatta; Asih, Wigati Taberi
Nagari Law Review Vol 8 No 1 (2024): Nagari Law Review
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Andalas University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25077/nalrev.v.8.i.1.p.51-64.2024

Abstract

Narcotics crimes are classified as a serious crime. Therefore, good law enforcement is needed to overcome crime, primarily related to the implementation of articles of narcotic crime in the trial. There is a significant urgency to implement law enforcement methods to handle narcotics crimes. This study explores the method of interpretation options for judges in granting a judgment in case an act is proven valid and convincingly guilty in narcotics cases. This study uses normative legal research methods or doctrinal legal research, in which the researchers will study the application of criminal offenses by law enforcers. The researcher is guided by the objectives of punishment adopted by the related regulations, criminal procedural law, and material criminal law. This study finds alternative interpretations for judges in determining which articles are legally and convincingly proven guilty of narcotics crimes as regulated by the law. Thus, this research provides insight into the importance of integrating theory and practice in criminal law for narcotics. The study also recommends strategies to increase the effectiveness of just law enforcement in narcotics cases.