Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

PARADIGMA HUKUM PROGRESIF MENGENAI PENERAPAN PEMIDANAAN MATI DALAM KUHP NOMOR 1 TAHUN 2023 Marselina, Putu Prisca; Hariyanto, Diah Ratna Sari
Kertha Wicara : Journal Ilmu Hukum Vol 12 No 07 (2023)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Udayana

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.24843/KW.2023.v12.i07.p1

Abstract

Tujuan penulisan artikel ini adalah untuk menganalisis perubahan posisi pidana mati dari jenis pidana pokok terberat menjadi pidana yang sifatnya khusus dalam RUU KUHP dan penerapan paradigma hukum prpgresif dalam konsep pidana mati yang sifatnya khusus dalam RUU KUHP. Untuk menganalisis hal tersebut penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian normative dengan pendeketana perundang-undangan dan Analisa untuk mengetahui makna perubahan posisi pemidanaan mati yang sebelumnya merupakan pidana pokok terberat menjadi pidana pokok yang bersifat khusus,, pemidanaan mati yang dianggap melanggar HAM dan penerapan pemidanaan mati dari perspektif hukum progresif. Berdasarkan analisis tersebut, atas dasar pertimbangan aspek perlindungan hak hidup setiap orang maka penerapan hukuman mati sebagai satu-satunya solusi harus pula dibarengi dengan kebijakan dan kerangka aksi lain yang lebih konkret dan komprehensif. Salah satunya yaitu menerapkan paradigma hukum progresif yang meletakkan penekanan pada pentingnya pelaku hukum untuk melakukan pemulihan terhadap penerapan hukum. Perumusan RUU KUHP memiliki maksud menggantikan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) warisan kolonial Belanda dengan hukum pidana yang lebih sesuai dengan nilai-nilai ke-Indonesia-an. Kata Kunci: Hukum Progresif, Pemidanaan Mati dan RUU KUHP. ABSTRACT The purpose of writing this article is to analyze the change in the position of the death penalty from the heaviest principal type of punishment to a special crime in the Criminal Code Bill and the application of a progressive legal paradigm in the special death penalty concept in the Criminal Code Bill. To analyze this, this study uses normative research with a statutory approach and analysis to determine the meaning of the change in the position of the death penalty which was previously the heaviest principal crime to a special principal punishment, the death penalty is not considered a violation of human rights and the application of the death penalty from a legal perspective. progressive. Based on this analysis, based on consideration of the aspect of protecting everyone's right to life, the application of the death penalty as the only solution must also be accompanied by other policies and other more concrete and comprehensive action frameworks. One of them is to apply a progressive legal paradigm that places emphasis on the importance of legal actors to restore the application of the law. The formulation of the Criminal Code Bill has the intention of replacing the Dutch colonial legacy of the Criminal Code (KUHP) with a criminal law that is more in line with Indonesian values. Key Words: Progressive Law, Death Penalty and Draft Criminal Code.
Normative Conflict Between the State Finance Law and the State-Owned Enterprises Law Regarding the Status of Separated State Assets Marselina, Putu Prisca; Gede Astariyani, Ni Luh
West Science Interdisciplinary Studies Vol. 3 No. 08 (2025): West Science Interdisciplinary Studies
Publisher : Westscience Press

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.58812/wsis.v3i08.2189

Abstract

This study aims to examine the contradiction between the legal perspectives in Law No. 17/2003 concerning state finances and Law No. 19/2003 concerning State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN) regarding separate state assets, and to investigate the legal ramifications of these contradictions on the responsibility and transparency of information in BUMN governance. This study employs normative legal research methodology using statute approach, conceptual approach, and analytical approach. Legal materials consist of primary legal materials including relevant laws and regulations, and secondary legal materials from academic literature, legal books, and scientific journal articles. The research findings indicate fundamental legal perspective differences between the two laws regarding separated state assets. The State Finance Law adopts a broad conception that separated state assets remain part of state finance under public law regime, while the SOE Law adopts a strict separation principle where such assets are no longer part of state assets but become SOE assets under corporate accountability system. This normative conflict creates contradiction in terminis that weakens the application of lex specialis derogat legi generali principle. The legal implications include the creation of a dual accountability system that burdens SOE management, confusion regarding transparency standards between corporate and public transparency, and ambiguity in corporate governance authority and responsibilities that generates high regulatory risk for SOE managers.
Normative Conflict Between the State Finance Law and the State-Owned Enterprises Law Regarding the Status of Separated State Assets Marselina, Putu Prisca; Gede Astariyani, Ni Luh
West Science Interdisciplinary Studies Vol. 3 No. 08 (2025): West Science Interdisciplinary Studies
Publisher : Westscience Press

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.58812/wsis.v3i08.2189

Abstract

This study aims to examine the contradiction between the legal perspectives in Law No. 17/2003 concerning state finances and Law No. 19/2003 concerning State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN) regarding separate state assets, and to investigate the legal ramifications of these contradictions on the responsibility and transparency of information in BUMN governance. This study employs normative legal research methodology using statute approach, conceptual approach, and analytical approach. Legal materials consist of primary legal materials including relevant laws and regulations, and secondary legal materials from academic literature, legal books, and scientific journal articles. The research findings indicate fundamental legal perspective differences between the two laws regarding separated state assets. The State Finance Law adopts a broad conception that separated state assets remain part of state finance under public law regime, while the SOE Law adopts a strict separation principle where such assets are no longer part of state assets but become SOE assets under corporate accountability system. This normative conflict creates contradiction in terminis that weakens the application of lex specialis derogat legi generali principle. The legal implications include the creation of a dual accountability system that burdens SOE management, confusion regarding transparency standards between corporate and public transparency, and ambiguity in corporate governance authority and responsibilities that generates high regulatory risk for SOE managers.