Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP KETERANGAN AHLI DALAM TINDAK PIDANA NARKOTIKA (STUDI PUTUSAN NOMOR:4/PID.SUS/2019/PN.BRB) Bimar Prananta; Dian Adriawan Daeng Tawang
Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Vol. 4 No. 4 (2022): Reformasi Hukum Trisakti
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Trisakti

Verdict Number 4/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Brb (hereinafter reffered as the Verdict) is a narcotics crime case with the defendant Achmad Syarif. The defendant submitted expert testimony, Sofyan Nata Saragih who testified that he had examined the defendant and diagnosed him with Accute Psychotic Schizophrenia Disorder. The Verdict stated the defendant was healthy and his actions could be accounted before the law. This is a problem because expert examination is not dan accordance with applicable regulations. The problems: whether expert testimony dan the Verdict is dan accordance with the applicable laws and regulations and is the Verdict which imposed criminal sentence on the defendant dan accordance with laws and regulations. The purpose of this research is to describe and analyze the Verdict. The research is a normative legal research, using secondary data and analyzed qualitatively. The lack of laws and regulations regarding expert testimony has impact on the wrong decision of the judge dan imposing a criminal sentence on the defendant. It is hoped that DPR can revise KUHAP by presenting 1 clear article regarding the conditions for person to become expert dan criminal case. It is considered necessary for judge to apply Article 180 of KUHAP and Article 19 concerning Mental Health.

ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP PUTUSAN HAKIM YANG TERDAKWANYA TIDAK DIDAMPINGI PENASIHAT HUKUM Rakhbir Singh; Dian Adriawan Daeng Tawang
Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Vol. 4 No. 3 (2022): Reformasi Hukum Trisakti
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Trisakti

The Baturaja District Court's ruling, Judge Number: 7/PID.B/2019/PN.BTA, does not offer the attempted murder defendant any pre-trial legal counsel or legal remedies. Normative justice is the study methodology used, and the research's primary objective is based on constructive legal standards or norms. The type of descriptive analytical research. This denotes a thorough, in-depth, and methodical analysis. The request from the prosecutor was rejected. The Attorney General's Office's allegations are ruled untrue, and the judgment is regarded as having never been reached. According to Article 56 (1) of the Criminal Code, judges in murder trials have a duty to counsel defendants. The accused may file an appeal with the Advocate Honorary Council.

RATIO DECIDENDI PUTUSAN HAKIM YANG BERBEDA DARI KASUS SEJENIS DALAM DELIK NARKOTIKA Satrya Manulung Bansage Immanuel Paparang; Dian Adriawan Daeng Tawang
Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Vol. 4 No. 3 (2022): Reformasi Hukum Trisakti
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Trisakti

The legal proposition, which is a predicate that comprises the consideration of the judge making a legal decision on the case being tried, say the case of drug use, contains the ratio decidendi of the court's decision. The way the issue is phrased is how are different judge decisions on the ratio determined (Decision of the South Jakarta District Court No.968/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Jkt.Sel and Decision of the Malang District Court No.28/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Mlg); and how are abuse addicts and drug abuse victims handled? The study methodology employed is normative juridical, which examines judicial rulings, statutes and regulations. The study's findings, analysis, and conclusions. There are discrepancies in the way judges imposed legislation when compared to the two verdicts in the drug case. If you look at the ratio decidendi of the punishment, it is obvious that the judges who tried the case were inconsistent in their assessments of the defendant's degree of behavior in light of the various grounds they used to reach their judgment.

PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM DALAM PUTUSAN NO.10/PID.SUS-TPK/2021/PT.DKI.DIKAITKAN PENERAPAN PASAL 5 UU NOMOR.48 TAHUN 2009: Consideration Judges in Decision No.10/PID.SUS-TPK/2021/PT.DKI.Related of Article 5 of Law No. 48 2009 Cindy Clarance Sinaga; Dian Adriawan Daeng Tawang
AMICUS CURIAE Vol. 1 No. 1 (2024): Amicus Curiae
Publisher : Universitas Trisakti

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

The consideration of the DKI High Court judge in the Pinangki Malasari case which turned out to be not in accordance with the facts, and not in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of Law No.48 of 2009. the formulation of the problem of how the judge's consideration in determining the verdict against the suspect in the crime of bribery in a corruption case in decision No. 10/PID.SUS.TPK/2021/PT and how the judge's consideration is related to the provisions in Article 5 of Law No. 48 of 2009. The rresearch method used is normative type, descriptive in nature, the main data is secondary data supported by interviews, how to collect data by literature study and interviews, qualitative analysis and how to draw conclusions using the deductive method. The results and discussion of this study are that judges have not been able to realize a sense of justice in their decisions. The conclusion of the research is that the considerations given by the panel of judges at the appellate level are not in accordance with the fact. Suggestion: The panel of judges in the future in providing consideration matters both mitigating and aggravating must always pay attention to legal principles.

ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP KETERANGAN AHLI DALAM TINDAK PIDANA NARKOTIKA (STUDI PUTUSAN NOMOR:4/PID.SUS/2019/PN.BRB) Bimar Prananta; Dian Adriawan Daeng Tawang
Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Vol 4 No 4 (2022): Reformasi Hukum Trisakti
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25105/refor.v4i6.15037

Verdict Number 4/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Brb (hereinafter reffered as the Verdict) is a narcotics crime case with the defendant Achmad Syarif. The defendant submitted expert testimony, Sofyan Nata Saragih who testified that he had examined the defendant and diagnosed him with Accute Psychotic Schizophrenia Disorder. The Verdict stated the defendant was healthy and his actions could be accounted before the law. This is a problem because expert examination is not dan accordance with applicable regulations. The problems: whether expert testimony dan the Verdict is dan accordance with the applicable laws and regulations and is the Verdict which imposed criminal sentence on the defendant dan accordance with laws and regulations. The purpose of this research is to describe and analyze the Verdict. The research is a normative legal research, using secondary data and analyzed qualitatively. The lack of laws and regulations regarding expert testimony has impact on the wrong decision of the judge dan imposing a criminal sentence on the defendant. It is hoped that DPR can revise KUHAP by presenting 1 clear article regarding the conditions for person to become expert dan criminal case. It is considered necessary for judge to apply Article 180 of KUHAP and Article 19 concerning Mental Health.

ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP PUTUSAN HAKIM YANG TERDAKWANYA TIDAK DIDAMPINGI PENASIHAT HUKUM Rakhbir Singh; Dian Adriawan Daeng Tawang
Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Vol 4 No 3 (2022): Reformasi Hukum Trisakti
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25105/refor.v4i5.15129

The Baturaja District Court's ruling, Judge Number: 7/PID.B/2019/PN.BTA, does not offer the attempted murder defendant any pre-trial legal counsel or legal remedies. Normative justice is the study methodology used, and the research's primary objective is based on constructive legal standards or norms. The type of descriptive analytical research. This denotes a thorough, in-depth, and methodical analysis. The request from the prosecutor was rejected. The Attorney General's Office's allegations are ruled untrue, and the judgment is regarded as having never been reached. According to Article 56 (1) of the Criminal Code, judges in murder trials have a duty to counsel defendants. The accused may file an appeal with the Advocate Honorary Council.

RATIO DECIDENDI PUTUSAN HAKIM YANG BERBEDA DARI KASUS SEJENIS DALAM DELIK NARKOTIKA Satrya Manulung Bansage Immanuel Paparang; Dian Adriawan Daeng Tawang
Reformasi Hukum Trisakti Vol 4 No 3 (2022): Reformasi Hukum Trisakti
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Trisakti

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25105/refor.v4i5.15134

The legal proposition, which is a predicate that comprises the consideration of the judge making a legal decision on the case being tried, say the case of drug use, contains the ratio decidendi of the court's decision. The way the issue is phrased is how are different judge decisions on the ratio determined (Decision of the South Jakarta District Court No.968/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Jkt.Sel and Decision of the Malang District Court No.28/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Mlg); and how are abuse addicts and drug abuse victims handled? The study methodology employed is normative juridical, which examines judicial rulings, statutes and regulations. The study's findings, analysis, and conclusions. There are discrepancies in the way judges imposed legislation when compared to the two verdicts in the drug case. If you look at the ratio decidendi of the punishment, it is obvious that the judges who tried the case were inconsistent in their assessments of the defendant's degree of behavior in light of the various grounds they used to reach their judgment.

Title

Found 7 Documents
Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title Search

Found 7 Documents Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title

Found 7 Documents
Search