Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 12 Documents
Search

Punishment Under Special Minimum Criminal Threat In the Crime of Child Abuse (Study of Decision Number 1041 K/Pid.Sus/2020) Ahmad, Rosman; Satria, Hariman; Abdaud, Faisal; Mafardin, Mafardin
Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum Vol. 22 No. 001 (2023): Pena Justisia (Special Issue)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pekalongan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31941/pj.v22i3.4909

Abstract

The imposition of a penalty below the special minimum in the crime of molestation of children is a very important issue in criminal law. This crime aims to provide more effective protection to victims of immorality involving children. In some cases of child abuse, the judge handed down a verdict below the special minimum. The offense that is the focus of this study is how the judge considers sentencing under the special minimum criminal threat based on Decision Number 1041 K/Pid.Sus/2020 in the case of criminal acts of child abuse? The research method used is a type of normative legal research using 2 (two) legal approaches, namely the legislative approach and the case approach. The results of the study concluded that  the Supreme Court in decision Number 1041/Pid.sus/2020 has strengthened the judex facti decision that imposes a penalty below the special minimum limit to the defendant so that the decision contradicts the provisions of Article 82 paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 of 2014 concerning Amendments to Law Number 23 of 2002 concerning Child Protection is the minimum limit of 5 (five) years and a maximum of 15 (fifteen) years.
Circumstantial Evidence in Criminal Proof: Is It Reliable? Arifuddin, Arifuddin; Satria, Hariman; Abdaud, Faisal
Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum Vol. 22 No. 001 (2023): Pena Justisia (Special Issue)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pekalongan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31941/pj.v22i3.5130

Abstract

Proof is the backbone of criminal justice. Because any party who lacks evidence will lose in the court decision. In current judicial practice in Indonesia, there is a lot of discussion about indirect evidence. This term originates from the common law criminal law doctrine and is starting to be used by Indonesian academics when explaining criminal cases in court. The results of the study show that normatively, the Criminal Procedure Code does not recognize the distribution of evidence, either direct or indirect. In criminal justice practice, indirect evidence can be seen in its functionalization in two decisions, namely decision Number 498K/PID/2017. Indirect evidence used is in the form of: witness statements, expert statements, letters and instructions. Furthermore, decision Number 1813K/PID.SUS/2016. The indirect evidence used is documentary evidence and statements from several witnesses. In order not to cause errors in practice, direct evidence must be prioritized, not the other way around.