Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 32 Documents
Search

Review Of The Punishment Of Substitute Money And Its Consequences In The Criminal Act Of Corruption (Study Of Decision Number 51 / Pid. Sus-Tpk/2020/Pn. Smg) Romli Mukayatsyah; Natangsa Surbakti; Muchamad Iksan
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi Vol. 4 No. 10 (2023): Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi
Publisher : Publikasi Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59141/jist.v4i10.754

Abstract

Payment of substitute money is an additional crime imposed by the panel of judges to recover state financial losses, as in Decision Number 51/Pid.Sus-TPK/2020/PN. Smg. The verdict is interesting to examine, what is the result of the panel of judges imposing additional penalties in the payment of substitute money in accordance with the purpose of the law, as well as how the view according to Islam. The study aims to analyze the consequences of the panel of judges imposing an additional criminal judgment on the payment of substitute money in Decision Number 51/Pid.Sus- TPK/2020/PN. Smg and his views according to Islam. The research is normative legal research, with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach, legal materials in the form of primary, secondary, and non-legal, the object of research is Decision Number 51 / Pid.Sus-TPK / 2020 / PN. Smg. Techniques for collecting legal materials with literature studies, with deductive analysis methods. The results of the study, as a result of which the judge's consideration did not clearly outline the calculation of state money used by the convict, imperfect defects, and non-achievement of legal objectives. Additional penalties for payment of substitute money according to Islam can be imposed on the convict because the property of Allah SWT is a mandate that must be accounted for its use
Juridical Analysis of The Execution of Confiscated Objects: A Case Study of Narcotics in the Blora State Court of Positive Law And Islamic Law Perspective Karyono Karyono; Aidul Fitriciadia Azhari; Natangsa Surbakti
Khazanah Hukum Vol. 4 No. 3 (2022): Khazanah Hukum Vol 4, No 3 November (2022)
Publisher : UIN Sunan Gunung Djati

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15575/kh.v4i3.19055

Abstract

The Blora District Prosecutor's Office is a state agency with authority to carry out lawsuits against perpetrators of criminal cases, including narcotics crime cases. In the case of narcotics, the Prosecutor's office is also authorized to store and destroy confiscated narcotics. This is to the laws and regulations that narcotics confiscated objects should be stored in the State Confiscated Objects Storage House (Rupbasan) by Article 44 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The destruction of narcotics confiscated objects is carried out no later than seven days after obtaining a legal decision and has permanent legal force from Blora District Court, as regulated in Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. In this study, researchers took several legal decisions at the Blora District Court, which had differences in executing narcotics confiscated objects. This qualitative research combines data on legal decisions and interviews with law enforcement officials. This study also uses positive legal theory and Islamic Law to analyze the problems that occur in criminal narcotics cases, especially in the execution of narcotics confiscated objects. So the results of this study conclude that there is discretion from the results of legal decisions with laws and regulations governing the execution of confiscated objects in narcotics crime cases at the Blora District Court.