Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Urgensi Pedoman Pemidanaan Demi Terwujudnya Putusan Hakim yang Berkeadilan La Ode Faiki
Journal of Mandalika Literature Vol. 5 No. 3 (2024)
Publisher : Institut Penelitian dan Pengembangan Mandalika (IP2MI)

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36312/jml.v5i3.3471

Abstract

Judge's decision, which is fair Abstract: In order to create a good and fair judiciary, the most important thing is to build the law as an instrument of legal institutions in order to carry out its duties as a law enforcement institution. Good law is law that supports justice and equality without discrimination. One of the mechanisms used by law enforcement institutions is a system of providing sanctions for those who violate legal norms. If it is related to criminal law enforcement, what must be developed is the construction and formulation of statutory regulations regarding criminal impositions, or in other words, the formulation of sentences in addition to reducing the scope for subjectivity in judges' judgments. One of the judge's decisions that caused concern for most of the public was when the judge tried a murder case committed by Inspector General Ferdy Sambo and his subordinates. They were all charged with violating Article 340 of the Criminal Code, but the judge who tried their case imposed varying sentences. This is because: The formulation of punishment in the Criminal Code Article 340 does not explicitly determine it basic punishment for each role. Criminal impositions vary only based on the judge's subjective judgment and beliefs. The formulation of Article 340 in the Criminal Code is: "Whoever deliberately and with premeditation takes the life of another person, is threatened with premeditated murder, with the death penalty or life imprisonment or for a certain period, a maximum of twenty years." The amount of authority given to judges by the State through Law No. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power. In Article 1 "Judicial Power is the power of an independent state to administer justice to uphold law and justice based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, for the sake of the implementation of the Rule of Law of the Republic of Indonesia. This verse clearly states that judicial power is "independent" power. The word independence means that in adjudicating, assessing and deciding to impose a crime on someone, no intervention is permitted, unless their independence is put forward and firmly upheld. If we analyze the two statements above, what makes the judge's decision seem discriminatory or does not fulfill the elements of justice is due to the law/sentencing formula which provides an opportunity for the judge to make an unfair sentencing decision. Second, the judge has too much authority in assessing and deciding criminal cases in accordance with his considerations and beliefs.
KONSTRUKSI UNDANG-UNDANG No. 31 TAHUN 1999 DALAM UPAYA PENCEGAHAN DAN PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI La Ode Faiki
Jurnal Cahaya Mandalika ISSN 2721-4796 (online) Vol. 4 No. 3 (2023): Jurnal Cahaya Mandalika
Publisher : Institut Penelitian Dan Pengambangan Mandalika Indonesia (IP2MI)

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36312/jcm.v4i3.2540

Abstract

Abstrak: Indonesia sebagai Negara hukum, oleh karena itu, segala bentuk perbuatan, perilaku baik itu dilakukan oleh Pemerinta maupun masyarakat harus diselesaikan secara hukum sesuai dengan mekanisme hukum yang telah ditetapkan oleh Negara. Negara yang menganut huku positif, sehingga setiap warga Negara yang melanggar aturan hukum sudah selayaknya mendapatkan sianksi hukum. Berat ringanya sanksi itu terganting berat ringanya pelanggaran. Bahwa setiap pelanggaran hukum sudah menjadi keharusan untuk diselesaikan dengan mengedepankan penyelesaian melalui jalur penal. kecuali pada kasus hokum tertentu penyelesaiannya mengedepankan solusi non penal. Tidak pidana kejahatan korupsi sebagai kejahatan luar biasa, maka penyelesaiannya Justru jalur penal lebih efektif agar terpenuhi sifat kemanfaatan hukum. Kehadiran Undang-Undang No. 31 Tahun 1999 juncto Undang-Undang No. 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi diharapkan mampu mencegah bahkan memberantas kejahatan korupsi, namun kenyataanya kejahatan korupsi masih saja menduduki posisi paling tinggi bila dibandingkan dengan kejahatan lainnya di negeri yang sama-sama kita cintai ini. Jusru dari waktu-kewaktu korupsi semakin massif. Masifnya kejahatan korupsi karena disebabkan antara lain: pertama melemahnya nilai-nilai sosial, kepentingan peribadi menjadi lebih utama dibanding kepentingan umum. Kedua, tidak adanya transparansi dan tanggung jawab sistem integrasi publik. Selain itu, penyebab maraknya korupsi di Negara ini karena beberapa faktor pendukung utama, diantaranya adalah faktor, hukum, faktor politik, faktor ekonomi, serta faktor hukuman. Bahkan lebih miris lagi masyarakat dianggab sebagai pelayan bagi mereka yang punya kekuasaan. Seberapa besar apapun semangat penegak hukum seperti Kepolisian, Kejaksaan , KPK, Pengadilan untuk memberantas korupsi, belum mampu menghentikan niat dan semangat para pelaku tindak pidana korupsi. Lebih diperparah lagi penegakan hukum terhadap pemberantasan korupsi di negeri ini, dimana cendering memberikan keistimewaan bahkan dispensasi hukum bagi pelaku tindak pidana korupsi. Kata Kunci: Korupsi, Tindak Pidana Korupsi, Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.