Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal KRTHA BHAYANGKARA Bandung Conference Series: Law Studies
Neng Erna Sry Denasty
Unknown Affiliation
Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Pembayaran Pidana Uang Pengganti Tindak Pidana Korupsi dan Implikasinya bagi Pengembalian Kerugian Negara Neng Erna Sry Denasty
Bandung Conference Series: Law Studies Vol. 4 No. 1 (2024): Bandung Conference Series: Law Studies
Publisher : UNISBA Press

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29313/bcsls.v4i1.9970

Abstract

Abstrak : Korupsi dapat menjadi pemicu kemiskinan dan menyebabkan ketidaksetaraan yang merugikan kesejahteraan masyarakat. Pelaku tindak pidana korupsi selain akan dikenai pidana yang diatur dalam Pasal 2 dan 3 UU Tipikor, akan dijatuhi pidana uang pengganti sesuai ketentuan Pasal 18 UU Tipikor. Pidana uang pengganti bertujuan untuk mengganti kerugian keuangan negara yang diakibatkan oleh adanya tindak pidana korupsi dengan perhitungan berdasarkan jumlah harta benda hasil perolehan dari korupsi. Uang pengganti mempunyai alternatif pidana subsider yang dapat dijalani oleh pelaku tindak pidana korupsi apabila tidak mampu melunasi jumlah uang pengganti. Putusan yang dijatuhkan oleh hakim sering menimbulkan ketidakseimbangan antara jumlah uang pengganti yang harus dibayarkan dan pidana subsider yang dijatuhkan. Penelitian ini bertujuan mengetahui implementasi pidana penjara sebagai subsider dari pidana uang pengganti dalam tindak pidana korupsi dan implikasi yang disebabkan dari penerapan pidana subsider uang pengganti dalam tindak pidana korupsi terhadap pengembalian kerugian negara. Penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan metode kualitatif yang diuraikan secara deskriptif menggunakan data sekunder dari pengumpulan data studi kepustakaan. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, implementasi pembayaran uang pengganti tidak efektif karena penjatuhan putusan hakim antara uang pengganti dan pidana subsider mengalami ketidakseimbangan yang disebabkan karena tidak adanya pedoman penjatuhan pidana subsider. Pembayaran uang pengganti yang bertujuan untuk mengembalikan kerugian negara juga memiliki implikasi yang tidak memuaskan karena pidana uang pengganti tetap tidak menutup dan mengembalikan kerugian negara yang disebabkan karena banyaknya pelaku tindak pidana korupsi yang tidak membayar uang pengganti dan lebih memilih untuk menjalani pidana subsider demi aset hasil korupsi yang dihasilkannya tetap aman. Abstract : Corruption can trigger poverty and cause inequality that is detrimental to the welfare of society. The perpetrators of corruption crimes, in addition to being subject to the penalties stipulated in Articles 2 and 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law, will be sentenced to replacement money in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law. Replacement money aims to compensate state financial losses caused by the criminal act of corruption with a calculation based on the amount of property resulting from corruption. Replacement money has an alternative subsidiary punishment that can be served by the perpetrator of a corruption crime if he is unable to pay off the amount of replacement money. The verdict imposed by the judge often causes an imbalance between the amount of replacement money that must be paid and the imposed subsidiary punishment. This study aims to determine the implementation of imprisonment as a substitute for replacement money in corruption crimes and the implications caused by the application of replacement money in corruption crimes on the return of state losses. This research uses normative legal research with qualitative methods described descriptively using secondary data from literature study data collection. Based on the results of the research, the implementation of replacement money payment is ineffective because the judge's decision between replacement money and subsidiary punishment is imbalanced due to the absence of guidelines for the imposition of subsidiary punishment. Payment of replacement money which aims to restore state losses also has unsatisfactory implications because replacement money still does not cover and restore state losses due to the large number of perpetrators of corruption who do not pay replacement money and prefer to undergo a subsidiary punishment so that the assets resulting from corruption remain safe.
Restorative Justice in Criminal Procedure Reform towards a Pro Victima et Societatis System Neng Erna Sry Denasty
KRTHA BHAYANGKARA Vol. 19 No. 3 (2025): KRTHA BHAYANGKARA: DECEMBER 2025
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Bhayangkara Jakarta Raya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31599/krtha.v19i3.4612

Abstract

This study aims to conduct a normative analysis of the direction of restorative justice regulations in the reform of criminal procedure law in Indonesia and the concept of restorative justice regulations in the reform of criminal procedure law that can be aligned with the principles of criminal law oriented towards victim protection and public interest. This research is motivated by the fact that the criminal justice system in Indonesia is still dominated by a retributive paradigm but often fails to achieve substantive justice. The 2025 Criminal Procedure Code draft has explicitly regulated restorative justice, but the absence of considerations regarding social impact and public unrest indicates a potential shift towards proceduralism. The research method used is normative juridical, which considers law as what is stated in legislation (law in books) with literature study and qualitative analysis methods that systematically describe secondary data. The results of the study show that the reform of criminal procedure law in Indonesia reflects a paradigm shift from retributive to restorative justice, emphasizing victim recovery, perpetrator responsibility, and social reconciliation as the objectives of punishment. Furthermore, restorative justice, which is in line with the principle of pro victima et societatis, depends on a balance between legal substance, institutional structure, and legal culture in order for the criminal justice system to be more humane and responsive to the community's need for justice
Co-Authors