Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Criminal Law Policy in Election Criminal Act Enforcement Wilman Supondho Akbar
Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences Vol 5, No 1 (2022): Budapest International Research and Critics Institute February
Publisher : Budapest International Research and Critics University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33258/birci.v5i1.4075

Abstract

The regulation of election crimes in the Pilkada Law and the Election Law, especially in terms of the definition and mechanism for handling election crimes, has juridical implications, both formal and material. In terms of the definition of election crime, the emergence of the classification of election crimes and violations, does not necessarily emphasize the difference between the regulation of offenses and sanctions between crimes and violations, so that there tends to be over-criminalization in terms of criminal law enforcement. On the other hand, the mechanism for handling election crimes is limited by the time of handling, making many cases of alleged election crimes unfinished. In this context, the urgency of classifying election crimes into crimes and violations as well as establishing a mechanism for handling election crimes must be seen and measured from the perspective of criminal law policies. This study uses a normative law research approach, namely normative case studies in the form of products of legal behavior, in this case the legal products studied are the Pilkada Law and the Election Law. The research specification in this article is descriptive analytical research, which describes the applicable laws and regulations associated with legal theories and practices of implementing positive law concerning the enforcement of criminal law for election crimes in the perspective of criminal law policies. Based on the results of the study, the classification of election crimes into violations and crimes at the formulation level does not have clear boundaries and standards both qualitatively and quantitatively. This causes at the level of implementation and execution, the distinction between violations and crimes is no longer important. Thus, the classification of election crimes into violations and crimes does not have significant implications for law enforcement efforts for election crimes. In addition, the mechanism for handling election crimes regulated in the Pilkada Law and the Election Law is not able to maximally encourage the fulfillment of the legal objectives of law enforcement regulations in the Pilkada Law and the Election Law.
Alternative Punishment In The Criminal Justice System Murshal Senjaya; Wilman Supondho Akbar
LITERACY : International Scientific Journals of Social, Education, Humanities Vol. 3 No. 1 (2024): April : International Scientific Journals of Social, Education, Humanities
Publisher : Badan Penerbit STIEPARI Press

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56910/literacy.v3i1.1404

Abstract

The urgency of alternative punishment as a substitute for imprisonment related to the purpose of punishment is driven by sharp criticism and dissatisfaction with prison sentences, especially short-term sentences, which are considered to have more negative effects (having the nature of suffering and not developing the perpetrators of criminal acts) and are no longer effective in improving the perpetrators. and tackling crime. In realizing its objectives, punishment must uphold a person's honor and dignity, punishment must also be able to make people fully aware of the actions they have committed and cause them to have a positive and constructive mental attitude towards efforts to overcome crime and the punishment is felt to be fair both to the convict and to victims or by society. Purpose theory (utilitarian) is the basis for the purpose of punishment, namely that punishment is not to decide the absolute demands of justice. So in essence there are two main aspects in the purpose of punishment which are legal interests that are to be protected in a balanced manner, namely the interests of society and the interests of the individual (perpetrator of the crime). As well as using punishment in accordance with the modern school of punishment, this school requires individualization of punishment to carry out rehabilitation and resocialization of individuals and perpetrators of criminal acts. Social work penalties can be imposed by a judge in order to minimize overcrowding in correctional institutions by implementing Article 20 of the Criminal Code or through sociological teleological interpretation of the law by harmonizing with existing regulations and not conflicting with applicable legal rules through procedures for investigating correctional institutions that experience excessive capacity. first to be submitted to the Minister of Law and Human Rights