Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.61
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Justitia et Pax Jurnal Penegakan Hukum dan Keadilan
Gulo, Cornelius Dikae Zolohefona
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

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

Found 3 Documents
Search

 1 
Disparity in Sentencing in Premeditated Murder Crimes to Provide Justice in Indonesia Gulo, Cornelius Dikae Zolohefona; Fahrurrozi, Fahrurrozi; Aviva, Faradistia Nur; Arkanbariq, Anantya Aliyya
Jurnal Penegakan Hukum dan Keadilan Vol 5, No 2 (2024): September
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.18196/jphk.v5i2.21629

Abstract

Sentencing disparity is the imposition of different punishments for similar criminal acts without justification. Disparity of punishment is also found in several judges' decisions regarding premeditated murder, for example, Cassation Decision No. 1727 K/PID/2009 and Cassation Decision No. 922 K/Pid/2018. The two verdicts, in principle, addressed the case of premeditated murder; however, they rendered disparate and quite lame sentences for each defendant. This study aims to examine the punishments associated with criminal offenses and the factors causing the disparities in sentencing for premeditated murder in Indonesia. This study constitutes doctrinal legal research that examines secondary data, specifically judicial verdicts and legal statutes about premeditated murder. This study revealed that criminal sanctions were initially designed to inflict suffering on perpetrators who committed crimes. Ultimately, the objective of the sanctions evolved into a mechanism for educating perpetrators to prevent the recurrence of their actions. This study identified factors that cause disparities in sentencing for premeditated murder in Indonesia, precisely the defendant's type of culpability, motives and intentions behind the crime, intrinsic characteristics of the defendant, how the defendant executed the criminal act, and the potential impact of the sentence on the defendant's future. These factors can become sentencing guidelines that can serve as a guide and control for judges in formulating and imposing sentencing verdicts so that the sentencing can provide justice for all parties, both for victims, defendants, and the wider community.
Disparity in Sentencing in Premeditated Murder Crimes to Provide Justice in Indonesia Gulo, Cornelius Dikae Zolohefona; Fahrurrozi, Fahrurrozi; Aviva, Faradistia Nur; Arkanbariq, Anantya Aliyya
Jurnal Penegakan Hukum dan Keadilan Vol. 5 No. 2 (2024): September
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.18196/jphk.v5i2.21629

Abstract

Sentencing disparity is the imposition of different punishments for similar criminal acts without justification. Disparity of punishment is also found in several judges' decisions regarding premeditated murder, for example, Cassation Decision No. 1727 K/PID/2009 and Cassation Decision No. 922 K/Pid/2018. The two verdicts, in principle, addressed the case of premeditated murder; however, they rendered disparate and quite lame sentences for each defendant. This study aims to examine the punishments associated with criminal offenses and the factors causing the disparities in sentencing for premeditated murder in Indonesia. This study constitutes doctrinal legal research that examines secondary data, specifically judicial verdicts and legal statutes about premeditated murder. This study revealed that criminal sanctions were initially designed to inflict suffering on perpetrators who committed crimes. Ultimately, the objective of the sanctions evolved into a mechanism for educating perpetrators to prevent the recurrence of their actions. This study identified factors that cause disparities in sentencing for premeditated murder in Indonesia, precisely the defendant's type of culpability, motives and intentions behind the crime, intrinsic characteristics of the defendant, how the defendant executed the criminal act, and the potential impact of the sentence on the defendant's future. These factors can become sentencing guidelines that can serve as a guide and control for judges in formulating and imposing sentencing verdicts so that the sentencing can provide justice for all parties, both for victims, defendants, and the wider community.
REVITALISASI POSISI JAKSA SEBAGAI DOMINUS LITIS DALAM MEWUJUDKAN PERADILAN CEPAT Gulo, Cornelius Dikae Zolohefona; Rudiyanto, Anton
Justitia et Pax Vol. 41 No. 2 (2025): Justitia et Pax Volume 41 Nomor 2 Tahun 2025
Publisher : Penerbit Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24002/jep.v41i2.11155

Abstract

The prosecutor plays a very central role in law enforcement, particularly in criminal law. The law enforcement process cannot be separated from one of the supervisory authorities of the Attorney General, which, according to the principle inherent in his position, is dominus litis. The regulation of the dominus litis principle in criminal procedural law is still not effective; prosecutors only receive case files when the investigation is already complete and are not involved from the beginning of the investigation. This will have significant implications for evidence presentation in court. The purpose of involving prosecutors from the investigation stage is to realize swift justice (constante justitie) and facilitate the prosecutor's task of presenting evidence and to revitalization the position of prosecutor as a dominus litis. When prosecutors and law enforcement officials assume a supervisory role, legal certainty becomes paramount. The methods used are the statute, comparative, and conceptual approaches.
Co-Authors Arkanbariq, Anantya Aliyya Aviva, Faradistia Nur Hery Widijanto Rudiyanto, Anton