p-Index From 2020 - 2025
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Humaniorum Journal
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Tinjauan Yuridis atas Pencabutan Status Tersangka terhadap Tersangka yang Melakukan Provokasi untuk Melakukan Kekerasan Hingga Menyebabkan Kematian Cumbhadrika, Chitto; Pradhana, Heykal
HUMANIORUM Vol 2 No 4 (2024): Jurnal Humaniorum
Publisher : PT Elaborium Elevasi Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37010/hmr.v2i4.77

Abstract

The determination of suspect status in Indonesian criminal procedural law is a crucial step based on sufficient and legitimate preliminary evidence. According to the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) Article 1 Paragraph (14), an individual may be designated as a suspect if there is adequate preliminary evidence pointing to a criminal act. However, this suspect status does not always result in a continuation of the investigation, as it can be revoked if insufficient evidence is found or if the alleged act is not considered a criminal offense. This article discusses the process of establishing and revoking suspect status, with an examination of a particular case involving WJP, a suspect whose status was later revoked. The analysis focuses on the available evidence and expert testimony, particularly from a language expert, who interpreted WJP's statements to assess whether they could potentially be considered a provocation for assault. By emphasizing the principle of objectivity in law enforcement, this paper also examines the importance of legitimate evidence and accurate evaluation in determining the continuation or cessation of an investigation. The study aims to provide a deeper understanding of the legal process and highlights the significance of transparency, accountability, and objectivity in the investigative and prosecutorial stages to ensure justice within Indonesia’s criminal justice system.
Analisis Yuridis Tindak Pidana Pendanaan Terorisme Melalui Yayasan Amal (Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Timur Nomor 278/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Jkt.Tim) Nanda, Nanda; Cumbhadrika, Chitto
HUMANIORUM Vol 3 No 2 (2025): Jurnal Humaniorum
Publisher : PT Elaborium Elevasi Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37010/hmr.v3i2.110

Abstract

Terrorism Financing is any action in the context of providing, collecting, giving or lending funds, either directly or indirectly, with the intention of being used and/or known to be used to carry out terrorist activities, terrorist organizations or terrorists. Finance or Funding is an important part of a terrorist attack, funds are very important in acts of terrorism because they will be used to support all actions that will be carried out to facilitate acts of terrorism, such as introducing ideology, funding the needs of terrorist members and their families, funding travel and housing, and recruitment , train new terrorists, obtain new names and documents, purchase weapons, and plan and carry out activities. The problem in this research is how are the qualifications for the criminal act of financing terrorism through charity foundations and also how is the application of criminal law and the judge's consideration of the criminal act of financing terrorism through charity foundations in Court Decision Number: 278/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Jkt.Tim. The research method used is normative juridical research using library data such as statutory regulations, court decisions, books etc. The research results show that the qualifications for criminal acts of financing terrorism through charitable foundations are contained in Article 4 of Law no. 9 of 2013 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Terrorism Financing Crimes. The application of criminal law to criminal acts of financing terrorism through charitable foundations, namely imprisonment and fines. The judge's considerations in court decision Number:278/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Jkt.Tim still does not fulfill the sense of justice because the sentence period proposed by the prosecutor and decided by the judge is still considered insufficient and not appropriate.