Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.61
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal PROCEEDING ICTESS (Internasional Conference on Technology, Education and Social Sciences) East Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (EAJMR) Jembatan Hukum: Kajian Ilmu Hukum, Sosial dan Administrasi Negara
Esti Aryani
Universitas Slamet Riyadi
Computer Science & IT Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Environmental Science Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences Other

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

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
Evaluation of Evidence in Electronic Criminal Case Trials Esti Aryani; Triwanto
East Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol. 1 No. 11 (2022): December 2022
Publisher : PT FORMOSA CENDEKIA GLOBAL

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55927/eajmr.v1i11.2133

Abstract

This study aims to study the validity of evidence and evidence in the electronic trial. One of the stages in the examination of criminal cases is proof. Proof is a problem that plays a role in the examination process at a court hearing, because through the evidence of the defendant's fate is determined. Assessment of the validity of the evidence and evidence in the electronic trial must still be in accordance with the provisions of the legislation. This study uses secondary data in the form of laws and regulations, literature books related to research material. The data obtained was then analyzed using a qualitative analysis method presented in the form of description. The results of the study found that the existing laws and regulations were not sufficient because there were no detailed provisions regarding the validity of both physical and electronic evidence used in electronic trials. Criminal procedural law reforms need to be carried out in order to be a standard guideline for the implementation of electronic trials.
Necessary Defense (Noodweer) in Assault Cases After the Enactment of Indonesia's National Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code Esti Aryani; Supriyanta Supriyanta
Jembatan Hukum : Kajian ilmu Hukum, Sosial dan Administrasi Negara Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): September: Jembatan Hukum : Kajian ilmu Hukum, Sosial dan Administrasi Negara
Publisher : Lembaga Pengembangan Kinerja Dosen

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62383/jembatan.v3i3.3405

Abstract

Necessary defense (noodweer) is a justification that may remove the unlawfulness of an act, including conduct that formally fulfills the elements of criminal assault. The legal problem arises when a person who resists an unlawful attack to protect themselves or another person is instead investigated and processed as a criminal offender. This study aims to analyze the application of necessary defense as a ground excluding punishment in assault offenses under the National Criminal Code and to analyze the authority of law enforcement officials to determine the existence of necessary defense under the latest Criminal Procedure Code. The study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Legal materials are analyzed qualitatively through a prescriptive method and deductive reasoning. The findings show that necessary defense under Article 34 of Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code constitutes a justification when there is an immediate unlawful attack or threat of attack, the defensive act is directed at protecting a legally recognized interest, and the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity are satisfied. Its application must be assessed on a case-by-case basis by considering the concrete circumstances in which the attack occurred. Under Law Number 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code, the assessment of necessary defense is not confined to judges but may be conducted sequentially by investigators, public prosecutors, and judges according to the stage of criminal proceedings. Investigators may terminate an investigation when the event does not constitute a criminal offense because a justification exists; public prosecutors may consider closing the case in the interest of law; and judges may render a judgment releasing the defendant from all legal charges. These powers must be exercised objectively, cautiously, transparently, and on the basis of evidence so as to protect persons who defend themselves without creating room for vigilantism.
Reconstructing Legal Protection for Victims In The New Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP): Between Legal Certainty and Human Rights Achmad Riyadi; Esti Aryani; Agatha Jumiati
PROCEEDING ICTESS (Internasional Conference on Technology, Education and Social Sciences) Vol 8 (2026): ICTESS 8th
Publisher : Universitas Slamet Riyadi Surakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

The reform of Indonesian criminal procedure through Law Number 20 of 2025 has strengthened the formal recognition of crime victims, but the practical relationship between legal certainty and human-rights protection requires closer examination. This study aims to assess the victim-protection framework in the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and formulate a reconstruction that makes victims’ rights operational without weakening the due process rights of suspects and defendants. The research uses normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, comparative, and human-rights approaches. Primary materials comprise Law Number 20 of 2025, the 1945 Constitution, and the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power; secondary materials comprise recent legal scholarship and methodological literature. The analysis shows that the new KUHAP represents a substantial advance because it expressly regulates victim rights, including information, protection, restitution, restorative justice, assistance, and victim-impact statements, notably in Articles 53, 79–88, 144, and 161. Nevertheless, several implementation questions remain, particularly concerning institutional coordination, operational standards, time limits, and effective remedies for non-fulfilment. The study therefore proposes a reconstruction centred on victims as rights-bearing legal subjects, clearer implementation duties, integrated recovery mechanisms, and accessible review procedures. This model seeks to connect normative recognition with enforceable protection while maintaining a balanced criminal process grounded in legal certainty, justice, utility, and human rights.
Co-Authors Achmad Riyadi Agatha Jumiati Supriyanta Supriyanta Triwanto