Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search
Journal : Lentera Hukum

Implikasi Yuridis Kebijakan Formulasi Alat Bukti Elektronik Eko Surya Prasetyo; Y.A. Triana Ohoiwutun; Halif Halif
Lentera Hukum Vol 5 No 2 (2018): LENTERA HUKUM
Publisher : University of Jember

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19184/ejlh.v5i2.7469

Abstract

Formulation policy occupies a strategic role in the efforts to eradicate criminal acts, as law enforcers are bounded by prevailing laws and regulations. The issue of article formulation is only the surface of the problem when using electronic evidence in practice. The Law Number 31, Year 1999, on Corruption Criminal Act acknowledges electronic evidence as an extension of “petunjuk”, while in The Law Number 8 Year 2010, the Money Laundering Criminal Act, electronic evidence is recognized as an independent instrument of evidence. This article examines the underlying reasons for differences in formulation policy, in terms of the legislator's rationales. This article will also expose juridical implications for the recognition of electronic evidence in both acts. The article uses normative yudiris-legal research that analyses law through a building norm system. Based on legislative review, by tracking the legislation rationale, it is found that there is no fundamental reason for the classification, but it is only a legal policy because of legislation Based on the conceptual study, it is understood that electronic evidence, “petunjuk”, is weaker than independent evidence. This article concludes with the suggestion to include electronic evidence in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), with a ‘stand-alone’ position that is not part of other evidence. Keywords: Formulation Policy, Electronic Evidence
Tindak Pidana Kelalaian Menyebabkan Luka yang Dilakukan oleh Dokter Gigi: Analisis Putusan Nomor: 257/Pid.B/2015/PN.Dps Selly Ismi Qomariyah; Y.A Triana Ohoiwutun; Sapti Prihatmini
Lentera Hukum Vol 5 No 3 (2018): LENTERA HUKUM
Publisher : University of Jember

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19184/ejlh.v5i1.6761

Abstract

There is a substantial difference between the ordinary crime related to its results and that related to its causes. In order to classified as a crime, the negligence carried out by medical personnel needs to be previously described regarding the fulfillment of the elements of lawlessness. This paper analyzes whether there is medical malpractice and with the following lawlessness in the court decision number 257/Pid.B/2015/PN.Dps. Throughout the analysis, it will provide a comprehension to the qualification of whether malpractice, medical negligence or medical risk. The result of the study finds that such a crime can be qualified to medical malpractice, even though he did not fulfill the nature against formal law but it meets the element of nature against material law. Keywords: Medical Malpractice, Lawlessness, Crime