Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
0.659
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Hukum Magnum Opus Unes Law Review Humantech : Jurnal Ilmiah Multidisiplin Indonesia
Larumpa, Renaldi Markus
Unknown Affiliation
Religion Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Physics Public Health Social Sciences

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

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
KAJIAN HUKUM PUTUSAN NOMOR: 01/PID.TIPIKOR/2013/PN.TTE TENTANG PENJATUHAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI Larumpa, Renaldi Markus; Selfianus Laritmas; Usak
Humantech : Jurnal Ilmiah Multidisiplin Indonesia Vol. 2 No. Spesial Issues 3 (2022): Humantech : Jurnal Ilmiah Multidisiplin Indonesia
Publisher : Program Studi Akuntansi IKOPIN

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.32670/ht.v2iSpesial Issues 3.1506

Abstract

Corruption is a problem that greatly disrupts the state's financial system. So corruption is dubbed as an extraordinary crime (extraordinary crime). Therefore, criminal acts of corruption are specifically regulated in Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption. Even though it is specifically regulated, in the judicial process of corruption, judges often give inappropriate sentences. Then in their consideration, the judges often do not pay attention to the principles of criminal law to punish the guilty. In line with that, through the normative research method, the authors use a case approach to analyze the judges' considerations in the decision Number: 01/Pid.Tipikor/2013/PN. Which sentenced the defendant to 7 (seven) years in prison. The verdict is not under the actions of the defendant, because the defendant's actions that were proven were only mistakes (schuld) in the form of negligence (culpa) and not intentionally (dolus). Therefore, the defendant should have been sentenced to less than 7 (seven) years because negligence is a lighter form of error than intentionally (Eddy, 2016: 187). This principle is very important in determining sentencing by judges. So that in terms of imposing a crime, the judge must pay attention to the forms of errors that can alleviate and burden both from the perspective of the defendant and the community by referring to the sentencing guidelines, so that these decisions are in line with the objectives of criminal law.
Legal Certainty of Non-Prime Offender Provisions in Justice Collaborator Criteria Hape, Messy Rivelya; Larumpa, Renaldi Markus
Jurnal Hukum Magnum Opus Vol. 7 No. 2 (2024): Agustus 2024
Publisher : Magister Ilmu Hukum Fakultas Hukum Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30996/jhmo.v7i2.10767

Abstract

The judge's determination that the defendant was not the main perpetrator in the verdict of premeditated murder case number 798/Pid.B/2022/Pn.Jkt.Sel, involves the role of a justice collaborator, which requires the perpetrator to not be the main offender. Normatively, the absence of a clear definition leads to legal uncertainty. Therefore, establishing the criteria for not being the main perpetrator can be achieved through theoretical interpretation of the participation offenses related to Defendant Eliezer. Analysis of existing types of participation offenses indicates that those involved in the act (medeplegen) are not considered the main perpetrators, whereas individuals who encourage, instigate, and intend for the action to occur are deemed the main perpetrators. Consequently, based on his role, position, and authority in committing the crime, Defendant Eliezer is categorized as not the main perpetrator. The criteria for this determination focus on the individual with the greatest role and responsibility. The purpose of this research is to explore the legal certainty surrounding the determination of the main perpetrator as a criterion for becoming a justice collaborator, which lacks normative clarification. This research employs a normative juridical method with a conceptual approach, along with legislative and case study analysis. The findings indicate that the legal certainty in determining the non-main perpetrator, as a criterion for a collaborating witness in revealing premeditated murder cases involving Defendant Eliezer, lacks dogmatic legal certainty. The Criminal Code does not explicitly define the classification of non-main perpetrators within the doctrine of participation, but Articles 55-56 of the Criminal Code address the punishment for individuals involved in crimes committed collectively.
Saksi Pelaku yang Bekerjasama pada Pengungkapan Kasus Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan Berencana dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana (Studi Putusan Nomor: 798/PID.B/2022/PN.JKT.SEL) Larumpa, Renaldi Markus; Malik, Faissal; Anshar, Anshar
UNES Law Review Vol. 6 No. 2 (2023)
Publisher : Universitas Ekasakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31933/unesrev.v6i2.1512

Abstract

This research aims to determine and analyze the regulations regarding cooperating perpetrator witnesses as the basis for judicial consideration in determining the status of cooperating perpetrator witnesses in the disclosure of premeditated murder cases in decision number 798/Pid.b/2022/PN.Jkt.Sel. Additionally, the study explores the extent of the involvement of cooperating perpetrator witnesses in general criminal offenses as a form of legal discovery. The research method employed is normative research using a case and legal approach to analyze primary legal materials, such as the court decision number 798/Pid.b/2022/PN.Jkt.Sel, and the Law No. 31 of 2014, SEMA 4 of 2011, and Joint Regulations of 2011. The results of the research indicate that, first: the regulation of cooperating perpetrator witnesses applies only to specific criminal offenses as mentioned. However, the judge's considerations in the a quo decision state that the Defendant Eliezer deserves to be designated as a cooperating perpetrator witness in the premeditated murder case based on the explanation in Article 5 Paragraph (2) of Law No. 31 of 2014 and later other conditions in Article 28 Paragraph (2). Second: Due to the complexity of disclosing serious and organized general criminal cases (casuistic), the conditions regarding the types of penalties are expanded for general criminal offenses with specified limitations.
Co-Authors Anshar, Anshar Hape, Messy Rivelya Laritmas, Selfianus Malik, Faissal Usak