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
A Resopijani
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 
ANALISIS TEORI KEADILAN RESTORATIF TERHADAP DASAR PERTIMBANGAN PUTUSAN HAKIM: KEJAHATAN PENGANCAMAN DI PENGADILAN NEGERI KUPANG (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 252/PID.B/2019/PN Kupang) Petrus De Jenerio Tefa; Reny Rebeka Masu; A Resopijani
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.v3i2.22327

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the application of the theory of restorative justice in the basis for considering judges' sentences for criminal acts of threats based on a case study of Decision Number 252/PID.B/2019/PN Kupang. legally, the regulation of this offense is stipulated in Article 335 Paragraph (1) Points 1 And 2 of the Indonesian Penal Code. This study examines the district court decision of kupang number 252/pid.b/2019/pn kupang, which reveals the presence of a personal vendetta harbored by the victim against the perpetrator prior to the legal incident. This illustrates the potential misuse of legal mechanisms as a means of retaliation in complex interpersonal relationships. Accordingly, this research is guided by the following problem formulations: what are the judicial considerations regarding the crime of threat in decision number 252/pid.b/2019/pn kupang? and how can restorative justice theory be applied in analyzing the judge’s considerations in the aforementioned decision?. This study employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and historical approaches. The research findings indicate that in Decision Number 252/Pid.B/2019/PN Kupang, the judge considered both juridical and sociological aspects, namely the fulfillment of the elements of the crime of threat as stipulated in Article 335 paragraph (1) of the Indonesian Penal Code, as well as the social impact of the defendant's actions.
MEKANISME PEMISAHAN PERKARA (SPLITSING) OLEH JAKSA PENUNTUT UMUM DALAM PROSES PEMBUKTIAN OLEH SAKSI MAHKOTA Martina Nencylia Riwu Lobo; Simplexius Asa; A Resopijani
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.v3i2.22776

Abstract

This research examines the mechanism of case splitting (splitsing) by the Public Prosecutor and the use of the crown witness (kroon getuige) in the Indonesian criminal justice system. Splitsing is the prosecutor's authority under Article 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Code of Criminal Procedure) to split a single case file with multiple suspects into separate prosecutions. This practice is commonly applied in cases of criminal participation (deelneming) or when there is a lack of evidence, particularly witnesses, to facilitate the evidentiary process. The main consequence of splitsing is the emergence of a crown witness, where one defendant is made a witness to provide testimony against another defendant. This term is not explicitly regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but its existence is recognized in judicial practice and supported by Supreme Court jurisprudence. Although considered effective, the use of a crown witness is highly controversial as it is deemed to conflict with human rights and fundamental legal principles. This includes violations of the right against self-incrimination and the principle of a speedy, simple, and low-cost trial. Juridically, a crown witness's testimony can be considered valid evidence if delivered under oath in court. However, its evidentiary strength is discretionary and depends entirely on the judge's assessment and conviction, and it must be supported by other valid evidence.
Co-Authors Martina Nencylia Riwu Lobo Petrus De Jenerio Tefa Reny Rebeka Masu Simplexius Asa