Articles
<![CDATA[Analisis Yuridis Tindak Pidana Penodaan Agama (Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Sampang Nomor: 69/Pid.B/2012/Pn.Spg) ]]>
<![CDATA[Subki, Tajus]]>;
<![CDATA[Muntahaa, Multazaam]]>;
<![CDATA[Azizah, Ainul]]>
<![CDATA[ Lentera Hukum Vol 1 No 2 (2014): LENTERA HUKUM ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[University of Jember ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.19184/ejlh.v1i1.565
<![CDATA[Kebebasan beragama di Indonesia dapat dilihat di Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (UUD 1945) amandemen kedua pada Pasal 28E ayat (1) dan (2). Akan tetapi terdapat pula pembatasan dalam konstitusi tersebut. Warga negara yang tidak mentaati pembatasan tersebut, maka akan dikenakan sanksi sesuai dengan aturan dalam Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP). Setelah diundangkannya Undang-Undang Nomor 1/PNPS/1965 tentang Pencegahan Penyalahgunaan dan atau Penodaan Agama, maka dalam KUHP ditambahkan Pasal 156a untuk menjerat tindak pidana penodaan agama. Dalam kasus yang Penulis analisis seharusnya Jaksa Penuntut Umum menggunakan dakwaan kumulatif dengan tetap memilih Pasal 156a huruf a KUHP dan Pasal 335 ayat (1) ke-1 KUHP, hal tersebut karena kedua pasal tersebut bukan merupakan tindak pidana yang sejenis.Hakim menjatuhkan pidana penjara 2 (dua) tahun. Pasal 156a KUHP memberi ancaman pidana 5 (lima) tahun penjara. Ancaman tersebut memang tergolong sangat tinggi dan berat, karena pembuat undang-undang menganggap akibat yang ditimbulkan oleh tindak pidana penodaan agama sangat serius bagi negara dan masyarakat. Hakim Pengadilan Negeri Sampang seharusnya memvonis Terdakwa dengan menjatuhkan pidana penjara 4 (empat) tahun sesuai dengan tuntutan Jaksa Penuntut Umum, sehingga Hakim dalam menjatuhkan pidana terhadap terdakwa sesuai dengan tujuan pemidanaan dalam teori gabungan. Kata Kunci: Tindak Pidana Penodaan Agama, Bentuk Surat Dakwaan, Tujuan Pemidanaan.]]>
<![CDATA[The Concept of Implementing The Policy of Rehabilitation of Drug Abuse Based On The Restorative Justice Approach By The Prosecutor's Office of The Republic Of Indonesia ]]>
<![CDATA[Jadmiko, Widhi]]>;
<![CDATA[Y. A. Triana Ohoiwutun]]>;
<![CDATA[Ainul Azizah]]>
<![CDATA[ UNES Law Review Vol. 6 No. 4 (2024): UNES LAW REVIEW (Juni 2024) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[LPPM Universitas Ekasakti Padang ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.31933/unesrev.v6i4.2088
<![CDATA[This study discusses the policy of Guideline Number 18 of 2021 concerning the settlement of drug abuse cases through rehabilitation with a restorative justice approach as an implementation of the dominus litis principle by the Indonesian Attorney General's Office. The implementation of the drug abuse rehabilitation policy by the Indonesian Attorney General's Office based on the dominus litis principle is regulated in the Attorney General's Guideline Number 18 of 2021. This policy addresses the number of drug convicts that exceed capacity with a restorative justice approach. The dominus litis principle gives prosecutors great authority in controlling the legal process, including the decision to continue or stop prosecution based on sufficient evidence. In addition, this principle allows for the termination of prosecution if the perpetrator's actions are not considered a crime. This policy gives prosecutors the authority to determine legal settlements with rehabilitation, prioritizing the recovery of perpetrators and positive impacts on society. Rehabilitation focuses on changing the behavior of perpetrators through programs that help them overcome drug addiction and improve their social skills. In addition to providing legal protection and the rights of perpetrators, this approach also emphasizes the principle of fast, simple, and low-cost justice, and avoids complicated and expensive legal processes. The principle of restorative justice in this policy aims to improve the negative impacts of drug abuse, by emphasizing the physical, mental, social, and emotional recovery of perpetrators, so that they can return to being productive members of society.]]>
<![CDATA[Delik Suap dan Gratifikasi dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi: Studi Kasus Putusan Hakim dalam Praktik Penegakan Hukum ]]>
<![CDATA[Kahar, Muhammad Paeway Ebiem]]>;
<![CDATA[Rahmatullah, Khoirul Lukman]]>;
<![CDATA[Yuris, Faza]]>;
<![CDATA[Azizah, Ainul]]>;
<![CDATA[Prihatmini, Sapti]]>
<![CDATA[ JURNAL ANTI KORUPSI Vol 13 No 1: Mei 2023 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[PUSAT KAJIAN ANTI KORUPSI FAKULTAS HUKUM UNIVERSITAS JEMBER ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.19184/jak.v13i1.40007
<![CDATA[ABSTRAK Praktik gratifikasi dan suap yang dilakukan oleh pejabat negara merupakan suatu masalah yang saat ini dihadapi bangsa Indonesia. Sepanjang ini perumusan peraturan mengenai perbuatan gratifikasi dan suap dibedakan berdasarkan adanya yang diperjanjikan. Artinya suap dapat berupa janji, sedangkan gratifikasi merupakan pemberian dalam arti luas dan bukan janji. Melalui putusan nomor Nomor 68/Pid.Sus-TPK/2018/PN.Jkt.Pst perlu dipahami lebih lanjut bagaimana putusan tersebut memaknai suap dan gratifikasi dalam konteks tindak pidana korupsi. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menggali pemaknaan dan interpretasi hukum terkait suap dan gratifikasi dalam putusan pengadilan tersebut. Metode yang digunakan adalah analisis isi terhadap putusan pengadilan, dengan mengidentifikasi argumen hukum yang digunakan, pendekatan hukum yang diadopsi, dan pertimbangan yang diberikan oleh hakim. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa putusan pengadilan tersebut memberikan pengertian yang jelas mengenai suap dan gratifikasi sebagai tindak pidana korupsi. Dalam konteks ini, suap diartikan sebagai pemberian atau janji pemberian kepada pejabat publik dengan tujuan mempengaruhi keputusan atau tindakan pejabat tersebut. Sementara itu, gratifikasi diartikan sebagai pemberian hadiah atau imbalan kepada pejabat publik sebagai bentuk penghargaan atau imbalan atas tindakan atau keputusan yang telah diambil.]]>
<![CDATA[Pemidanaan Terhadap Pelaku Tindak Pidana Pencabulan (Putusan Nomor 1361/Pid.B/2022/PN.Sby) ]]>
<![CDATA[Afifah, Rinda Nur]]>;
<![CDATA[Iriyanto, Echwan]]>;
<![CDATA[Azizah, Ainul]]>
<![CDATA[ MIMBAR YUSTITIA : Jurnal Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Vol 7 No 2 (2023): Desember 2023 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Universitas Islam Darul 'Ulum Lamongan ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.52166/mimbar.v7i2.5198
<![CDATA[ABSTRACT Punishment is a sanction that causes pain or suffering that is intentionally inflicted on someone. Sentencing in Decision Number 1361/Pid.B/2022/PN.Sby is interesting to discuss in relation to the form of the indictment and the judge's consideration. The urgency of this research is to evaluate the form of the public prosecutor's indictment and the judge's consideration with the aim of providing ideas and solutions to the legal issues being studied. This research uses a normative juridical method with a statutory approach and conceptual approach, and legal materials are analyzed using the deductive method. The result of this study is that the form of the alternative indictment of the public prosecutor is correct but the composition needs to be adjusted and the judge's consideration in applying the article is not in accordance with the facts in the trial. The form of the indictment is more appropriate to use an alternative whose formation is adjusted to the classification of the article charged and the judge's consideration is not in accordance with the facts at trial because the defendant is not proven to have committed several criminal acts, so that the application of concurcus realis in the decision is inappropriate. Keywords: Conviction, Indictment, Judge's Consideration ABSTRAK Pemidanaan merupakan sanksi yang menderitakan atau nestapa yang sengaja ditimpakan kepada seseorang. Pemidanaan pada Putusan Nomor 1361/Pid.B/2022/PN.Sby menarik untuk dibahas dikaitkan dengan bentuk surat dakwaan dan pertimbangan hakim. Urgensi penelitian ini adalah untuk mengevaluasi bentuk surat dakwaan penuntut umum dan pertimbangan hakim dengan tujuan untuk memberikan gagasan serta solusi terhadap isu hukum yang sedang diteliti. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan konseptual, dan bahan hukum dianalisis menggunakan metode deduktif. Hasil penelitian ini bahwa bentuk surat dakwaan alternatif penuntut umum sudah tepat namun susunannya perlu disesuaikan dan pertimbangan hakim dalam penerapan pasal yang tidak sesuai dengan fakta yang ada di persidangan. Bentuk surat dakwaan lebih tepat menggunakan alternatif yang formasinya disesuaikan dengan klasifikasi pasal yang didakwakan serta pertimbangan hakim yang tidak sesuai dengan fakta di persidangan karena Terdakwa tidak terbukti melakukan beberapa tindak pidana, sehingga penerapan concurcus realis dalam putusan tersebut menjadi tidak tepat. Kata Kunci: Pemidanaan, Surat Dakwaan, Pertimbangan Hakim]]>
<![CDATA[Restorative Approaches to Managing Children in Conflict with the Law ]]>
<![CDATA[Anwar, Iryana]]>;
<![CDATA[Prihatmini, Sapti]]>;
<![CDATA[Azizah, Ainul]]>;
<![CDATA[Suarda, I Gede Widhiana]]>
<![CDATA[ Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Kyadiren Vol 6 No 1 (2024): Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Kyadiren ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[PPPM, Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Hukum (STIH) Biak-Papua ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.46924/jihk.v6i1.193
<![CDATA[This study investigates the regulation of action sanctions through a restorative approach for children in conflict with the law (ABH) within the juvenile criminal justice system in Indonesia. The objective is to analyze the alignment of these regulations with the principles of child protection and restorative justice. Utilizing a normative juridical method that incorporates statutory and conceptual approaches, the findings indicate that Article 82 of the Juvenile Criminal Justice System Law (SPPA Law) embodies a restorative justice approach, striving to balance community protection with the rehabilitation of ABH. However, the implementation is suboptimal, and many ABH continue to receive prison sentences. This suggests that the principles of the best interests of the child, the right to development, and respect for children’s views have not been adequately upheld. There is a need for further refinement of action sanctions to better align with restorative justice and address the needs of ABH.]]>
<![CDATA[Kebijakan Penerapan Tindak Pidana Penistaan Agama Di Indonesia ]]>
<![CDATA[I Gede Widhiana Suarda]]>;
<![CDATA[Ainul Azizah]]>;
<![CDATA[Ahmad Fahrudin]]>
<![CDATA[ JURNAL HUKUM, POLITIK DAN ILMU SOSIAL Vol. 2 No. 2 (2023): Juni: JURNAL HUKUM, POLITIK DAN ILMU SOSIAL ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Pusat Riset dan Inovasi Nasional ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.55606/jhpis.v2i2.1642
<![CDATA[Ethnicity, religion, race and intergroup (SARA) are social elements that have an important role in human life, therefore, the freedom of each party must be respected and guaranteed. Religion is an important element of human existence and perhaps the most impressive element that can exert an important influence on the behavior of individuals. Indonesian positive law regulates punishment for perpetrators of religious blasphemy regulated in Article 156a of the Criminal Code. The initial purpose of enacting this article was against the backdrop of the many sects of belief and mysticism teachings that were considered heretical and not in accordance with the religious teachings of the Indonesian people. Article 156a of the Criminal Code is intended to prevent religious teachings from being distorted which are considered as the main teachings by the leaders or religious leaders concerned; and this rule protects religious peace in society and maintains the values of religious teachings that are maintained by the community from insults/humiliations and from teachings not to embrace a religion based on Belief in the One Supreme God.]]>
<![CDATA[Prinsip Keadilan Restoratif Dalam Penghentian Penuntutan Perkara Pidana Berdasarkan Peraturan Jaksa Agung Nomor 15 Tahun 2020 ]]>
<![CDATA[Ainul Azizah]]>;
<![CDATA[I Gede Widhianan Suarda]]>;
<![CDATA[Mardiyono Mardiyono]]>
<![CDATA[ JURNAL HUKUM, POLITIK DAN ILMU SOSIAL Vol. 2 No. 2 (2023): Juni: JURNAL HUKUM, POLITIK DAN ILMU SOSIAL ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Pusat Riset dan Inovasi Nasional ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.55606/jhpis.v2i2.1643
<![CDATA[Restorative justice or better known as restorative justice in the development of schools of law and punishment in human civilization, where the state returns the ius ponale and ius poniendi mandates to the community within the framework of healing, recovery and recovery. Restorative justice is a concept of thinking that responds to the development of the criminal justice system by focusing on the need to involve actors, communities and victims as a social recovery step in social relations. The principle of restorative justice is one of the principles of law enforcement in resolving cases which can be used as an instrument of recovery and has been implemented by the supreme court in the form of policy implementation (Supreme Court Regulations and Supreme Court Circulars). Restorative justice is considered a model of modern punishment that is more humane than the retributive justice used in the current justice system. One of the applications of this is the termination of the prosecution process by the prosecutor.]]>
<![CDATA[Prinsip Kehati-Hatian yang Dilakukan Notaris dalam Penyimpanan Minuta Akta Notaris ]]>
<![CDATA[Ahmad Mukhlasul Abidin]]>;
<![CDATA[Moh. Ali]]>;
<![CDATA[Ainul Azizah]]>
<![CDATA[ J-CEKI : Jurnal Cendekia Ilmiah Vol. 3 No. 5: Agustus 2024 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV. ULIL ALBAB CORP ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.56799/jceki.v3i5.4094
<![CDATA[This research aims to examine the principles of caution used by notaries when storing minutes of notarial deeds. A notary is a public official who has the authority to make deed minutes and save them in the form of a notarial protocol. So far, notaries legally store deeds only in the form of notary protocols, there are no rules that clearly regulate the layout of storing deeds in the notary's office safely and with confidentiality maintained. Apart from that, the Notary must be able to guarantee legal certainty for the parties entering into a deed agreement by being given a copy of the deed and storing the minutes of the deed (original deed) safely. Notaries are expected to apply the principle of prudence with the deeds they make, the authority and obligations they have as a Notary. Bearing in mind the importance of Article 16 paragraph (1) letter b, which is the obligation of a Notary to make a deed and save it in a Notary Protocol. This research uses normative juridical research with data collection techniques from literature consisting of primary legal and secondary legal materials.]]>
<![CDATA[Position of Perma No. 1 of 2013 in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System ]]>
<![CDATA[Hartono, Danang Tri]]>;
<![CDATA[Azizah, Ainul]]>;
<![CDATA[Ghufron, Nurul]]>
<![CDATA[ Eduvest - Journal of Universal Studies Vol. 5 No. 5 (2025): Eduvest - Journal of Universal Studies ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Green Publisher Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.59188/eduvest.v5i5.51281
<![CDATA[This study examines the position of Perma No. 1 of 2013 within the Indonesian criminal justice system, focusing on its role in asset forfeiture for crimes where suspects remain at large. The research highlights the conflict between Article 79 Paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 of 2010 (Money Laundering Law), which permits in absentia trials, and the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), which mandates defendant presence. Utilizing a normative juridical approach, the study analyzes legal frameworks, including the Anti-Corruption Law and Perma No. 1 of 2013, to evaluate mechanisms for confiscating assets from fugitive suspects. Findings reveal that while Perma No. 1 of 2013 provides a procedural basis for in rem forfeiture, its implementation faces challenges, particularly regarding assets outside formal accounts. The study concludes that harmonizing legal provisions and enhancing law enforcement awareness are critical to optimizing asset recovery and upholding legal certainty in Indonesia’s criminal justice system.]]>
<![CDATA[Ratio Legis Policy of Republic of Indonesia State Police Regulation Number 8 of 2021 Based On Restorative Justice In Narcotics Crimes ]]>
<![CDATA[Angga Wardana]]>;
<![CDATA[Widhiana Suarda , I Gede]]>;
<![CDATA[Azizah, Ainul]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities Vol. 4 No. 4 (2024): (JLPH) Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities (May-June 2024) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Dinasti Research ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.38035/jlph.v4i4.445
<![CDATA[Restorative justice, which is based on POLRI Regulation Number 8 of 2021 concerning Handling of Criminal Acts Based on Restorative Justice, was formed to realize efforts to resolve criminal acts by prioritizing aspects of restorative justice. Through this regulation, criminal law enforcement by the police is oriented to re-emphasize the restoration of the original situation as before the crime occurred. The research method used uses a normative juridical research type with a statutory and regulatory approach. This research uses literature study techniques by inventorying suitability based on primary and secondary legal materials to answer the problems in this research. ratio legis implementation of the Republic of Indonesia State Police Regulation Number 8 of 2021 reflects a restorative justice approach in the investigation stage of handling criminal acts. It emphasizes the importance of healing and reconciliation as part of the investigative process, reflecting a paradigm shift in criminal law towards a more holistic and recovery-oriented approach. The dynamics of handling narcotics crimes based on the principles of restorative justice, there are special requirements that must be complied with. Republic of Indonesia State Police Regulation Number 8 of 2021 pays special attention to the condition of individuals involved in narcotics abuse. This consideration involves evaluating the status of drug users, the condition of the victim of drug abuse, the level of drug dependence of the perpetrator, the type of narcotics used, and the amount.]]>
