<![CDATA[This article highlights the controversy of revised act of corruption commission (UU KPK) and of the Book of Criminal Law (KUHP) which had heated up. By using legal gap theory, this writing uncovers the legal gap between the contents of revised KUHP and living laws. Consequently, people in the grassroots level seem more enthusiastic about the issue, for example, the fines because livestock entering other people yards than weakening KPK issues that drive a wave of demonstrations at the level of well-educated people. Many studies in the sphere of sociology of law that have conducted gave much attentions to the living law or norm in the mods of society. However there is not much of them which gave attention to the legal gap phenomena, it is the incompatibility between living law and formal one. Whereas, such an approach tend to be considered late if it we aim to put the sociology of law as one discipline of social science which is useful in strengthening the law enforcement. In the hilt of the matter, there is an issue of the legal gap which should have been expressed from the beginning, mainly as to the compatibility between formal and informal law when legislation was going on. By utilizing literature study, the research found that; firstly, the resistance against revised KUHP is the logical consequence of legal gap phenomena that has potential legal conflict. Secondly, there are four major manners could be done to resolve the gap; repression, counseling, reformation and restorative justice. Artikel ini menyoroti kontroversi rancangan revisi undang-undang KPK dan KUHP yang sempat memanas. Dengan menggunakan teori kesenjangan hukum (legal gap), tulisan ini mengungkap bahwa terdapat kesenjangan hukum antara sebagian isi revisi KUHP dengan hukum yang hidup di tengah masyarakat. Akibatnya, masyarakat akar rumput tampaknya lebih antusias menyoroti isu misalnya denda ayam masuk pekarangan orang lain ketimbang isu pelemahan KPK yang menggerakkan gelombang demonstrasi di level masyarakat terdidik. Beberapa kajian di bidang sosiologi hukum yang telah dilakukan banyak memberikan perhatian terhadap hukum atau norma yang hidup di tengah-tengah masyarakat. Namun belum banyak di antaranya yang memberikan perhatian terhadap fenomena legal gap, yaitu kesenjangan living law dengan hukum formal. Padahal, pendekatan semacam ini cenderung ‘terlambat’ jika ditujukan untuk meletakkan sosiologi hukum sebagai disiplin keilmuan yang lebih berdaya guna terhadap penegakan hukum. Di hulu persoalan ini, terdapat isu kejanjangan hukum (legal gap) yang semestinya disuarakan sejak awal, terutama meyangkut kesesuaian antara hukum formal dan informal pada saat proses legislasi sedang berlangsung. Dengan memanfaatkan kajian literatur, penelitian ini menemukan bahwa; pertama, penolakan terhadap KHUP merupakan konsekuensi dari fenomena legal gap yang berpotensi menjadi konflik hukum. Kedua, ada empat cara yang bisa dilakukan untuk mengatasi kesenjangan tersebut; represi, penyuluhan, reformasi, dan keadilan restorative.]]>
