Aloysius Wisnubroto
Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta

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

Found 3 Documents
Search

URGENSI PERUBAHAN PARADIGMA PENEGAKAN HUKUM DALAM MENGHADAPI TANTANGAN ERA KONTEMPORER Bartama, Primus Adiodatus Abi; Wisnubroto, Aloysius
Justitia et Pax Vol 33, No 1 (2017): Justitia Et Pax Volume 33 Nomor 1 Tahun 2017
Publisher : Penerbit Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24002/jep.v33i1.1415

Abstract

 Contemporary era with a dynamic information society presents new challenges in various fields of human life, one of them is law enforcement. The failure of law enforcement system in realizing substantial justice in a dynamic society is caused by paradigmatic legal issues. The problems which are going to be studied and answered are how the law enforcement paradigm shift urgency in facing the challenges of contemporary era. Through methods that are doctrinaire (normative-philosophical), it is found the limitations of law enforcement system that resulted in the law, particularly in the settlement through the judiciary, are not able to bring about justice because they are still hampered due to the paradigm of positivistic. Thus the paradigm shift becomes very urgent to overcome the limitations of the legal system is positivistic. The paradigm that is deemed in accordance with the needs of society that is dynamic  information society is a legal paradigm that is non-positivistic.Keyword: Law enforcement, Paradigm, Contemporary era, Justice system.INTISARIEra kontemporer dengan masyarakat informasinya yang dinamis menghadirkan tantangan-tantangan baru dalam berbagai bidang kehidupan manusia, salah satunya adalah masalah penegakan hukum. Kegagalan sistem penegakan hukum dalam mewujudkan keadilan yang substansial dalam masyarakat yang dinamis disebabkan karena permasalahan hukum yang bersifat paradgmatis. Permasalahan yang hendak dikaji dan dijawab adalah bagaimana urgensi perubahan paradigma penegakan hukum dalam menghadapi tantangan era kontemporer. Melalui metode yang bersifat doktriner (normatis-filosofis), diperoleh temuan bahwa keterbatasan sistem penegakan hukum yang mengakibatkan hukum, khususnya dalam penyelesaian perkara melalui lembaga peradilan, tidak mampu mewujudkan keadilan dikarenakan masih terbelenggun dengan paradigma hukum positif. Demikian perubahan paradigma menjadi sangat urgen untuk mengatasi keterbatasan sistem hukum positif. Paradigma yang dipandang sesuai dengan kebutuhan masyarakat informasi yang bersifat dinamis adalah paradigma hukum yang bersifat nonpositivistik.Kata Kunci: Penegakan hukum, Paradigma,Era kontemporer, sistem peradilan.
URGENSI PERUBAHAN PARADIGMA PENEGAKAN HUKUM DALAM MENGHADAPI TANTANGAN ERA KONTEMPORER Primus Adiodatus Abi Bartama; Aloysius Wisnubroto
Justitia et Pax Vol. 33 No. 1 (2017): Justitia Et Pax Volume 33 Nomor 1 Tahun 2017
Publisher : Penerbit Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24002/jep.v33i1.1415

Abstract

 Contemporary era with a dynamic information society presents new challenges in various fields of human life, one of them is law enforcement. The failure of law enforcement system in realizing substantial justice in a dynamic society is caused by paradigmatic legal issues. The problems which are going to be studied and answered are how the law enforcement paradigm shift urgency in facing the challenges of contemporary era. Through methods that are doctrinaire (normative-philosophical), it is found the limitations of law enforcement system that resulted in the law, particularly in the settlement through the judiciary, are not able to bring about justice because they are still hampered due to the paradigm of positivistic. Thus the paradigm shift becomes very urgent to overcome the limitations of the legal system is positivistic. The paradigm that is deemed in accordance with the needs of society that is dynamic  information society is a legal paradigm that is non-positivistic.Keyword: Law enforcement, Paradigm, Contemporary era, Justice system.INTISARIEra kontemporer dengan masyarakat informasinya yang dinamis menghadirkan tantangan-tantangan baru dalam berbagai bidang kehidupan manusia, salah satunya adalah masalah penegakan hukum. Kegagalan sistem penegakan hukum dalam mewujudkan keadilan yang substansial dalam masyarakat yang dinamis disebabkan karena permasalahan hukum yang bersifat paradgmatis. Permasalahan yang hendak dikaji dan dijawab adalah bagaimana urgensi perubahan paradigma penegakan hukum dalam menghadapi tantangan era kontemporer. Melalui metode yang bersifat doktriner (normatis-filosofis), diperoleh temuan bahwa keterbatasan sistem penegakan hukum yang mengakibatkan hukum, khususnya dalam penyelesaian perkara melalui lembaga peradilan, tidak mampu mewujudkan keadilan dikarenakan masih terbelenggun dengan paradigma hukum positif. Demikian perubahan paradigma menjadi sangat urgen untuk mengatasi keterbatasan sistem hukum positif. Paradigma yang dipandang sesuai dengan kebutuhan masyarakat informasi yang bersifat dinamis adalah paradigma hukum yang bersifat nonpositivistik.Kata Kunci: Penegakan hukum, Paradigma,Era kontemporer, sistem peradilan.
Bewijsvoering Analysis of Electronic Evidence in Criminal Cases’s Proving Aloysius Wisnubroto; Vincentius Patria Setyawan
UNES Law Review Vol. 6 No. 2 (2023): UNES LAW REVIEW (Desember 2023)
Publisher : LPPM Universitas Ekasakti Padang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31933/unesrev.v6i2.1270

Abstract

An important aspect that cannot be separated from the evidentiary process is related to how to obtain and present evidence to the judge before the trial. Wiretapping as electronic evidence obtained secretly often gives rise to debate from the perspective of bewijsvoering, and the evidentiary value of electronic evidence obtained through wiretapping. This article will discuss the use of wiretapping results as electronic evidence in relation to its evidentiary value in court. The results of this research show that there is a dualism in bewijsvoering the results of wiretapping as electronic evidence, some are of the opinion that bewijsvoering the results of wiretapping as electronic evidence must be obtained legally, and other opinions state that bewijsvoering is a separate matter from proof, as long as the evidence is submitted to the front. the trial is in accordance with the facts and other evidence, then the evidence is considered valid.