Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Petitum Law Journal
Orpa G Manuain
faculty of law, Nusa Cendana University
Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
PEMBERIAN PIDANA DENDA SEBAGAI PIDANA YANG DAPAT DISUBSIDERKAN DALAM PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI DITINJAU DARI ASPEK TUJUAN PEMIDANAAN (STUDI PUTUSAN NOMOR 57/PID.SUS-TPK/2023/PN KPG) Yanuarius Maria Gole Duan; Orpa G Manuain; Heryanto Amalo
Petitum Law Journal Vol 3 No 2 (2026): Petitum Law Journal Volume 3, Nomor 2, Mei 2026
Publisher : Petitum Law Journal

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35508/pelana.v3i2.22519

Abstract

This study examines the inconsistencies in the application of fines that can be changed to imprisonment in corruption cases, by utilizing the theory of combined punishment that includes retaliation, prevention, and rehabilitation. This study focuses on Decision Number 57/Pid. Sus-TPK/2023/PN Kpg, in which the defendant Bernadus S. Atawolo was sentenced to a fine of fifty million rupiah (Rp 50,000,000), which was changed to a prison sentence of six months. This decision is problematic because it does not reflect the seriousness of the crime of corruption and the losses caused to state finances. Many perpetrators of crimes prefer to serve prison sentences rather than pay fines, which in turn reduces the deterrent effect and damages public trust. Legally, this replacement shows an inconsistency between the general provisions in the Criminal Code and the lack of stricter rules in Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with. Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption. This study suggests the need for reform of the Tipikor Law by eliminating substitute sentences that are too light and replacing them with prison sentences that are commensurate with state losses. Referring to Article 79 of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the New Criminal Code, the regulation must ensure that fines cannot be easily avoided and make a significant contribution to asset recovery. This normative legal research applies legal case analysis and statutory interpretation.
ANALISIS PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA TERHADAP PENGGUNAAN ARTIFICIAL INTELIGENCE SEBAGAI ALAT TINDAK KEJAHATAN DI INDONESIA Yohana Lastrio; Orpa G Manuain; Ngongo Dede
Petitum Law Journal Vol 3 No 2 (2026): Petitum Law Journal Volume 3, Nomor 2, Mei 2026
Publisher : Petitum Law Journal

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35508/pelana.v3i2.22935

Abstract

The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has brought transformative benefits across various sectors but has also introduced profound legal challenges, particularly in attributing criminal liability when AI is used as a tool in criminal acts. This research is guided by the core question: How can Indonesia’s criminal law system establish liability for the use of Artificial Intelligence as an instrument of crime? Employing a normative juridical method, this study integrates statutory, conceptual, case-based, comparative, and historical approaches to examine the current legal framework, including the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE Law) and the 2023 Indonesian Criminal Code. Findings reveal that Indonesia’s legal system still faces significant normative and technical barriers. Normatively, existing regulations do not fully address the complexity of autonomous and adaptive AI systems. Technically, establishing mens rea and causality between human action and AI-generated outcomes remains difficult. In this context, the Perpetration by Another Liability model is a relevant legal framework, positioning AI as instrumentum delicti and assigning criminal responsibility to the human actors, developers, providers, or users, who knowingly deploy AI systems for unlawful purposes. This model aligns with Articles 36 and 37 of the Criminal Code and emphasizes accountability, precaution, and legal adaptability in facing the evolving nature of AI-driven crimes.
Co-Authors Heryanto Amalo Ngongo Dede Yanuarius Maria Gole Duan Yohana Lastrio