Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
1.909
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Akta Corruptio Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis Sabangka Abdimas Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat Sabangka Kanun: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Realism: Law Review Jurnal Hukum Unsulbar NALA : Jurnal Pendidikan, Penelitian, dan Pengabdian Masyarakat ALKHIDMAH: Jurnal Pengabdian dan Kemitraan Masyarakat
Dharma Setiawan Negara
Universitas Sunan Giri Surabaya
Humanities Civil Engineering, Building, Construction & Architecture Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Environmental Science Health Professions Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Public Health Social Sciences Other

Published : 12 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 12 Documents
Search

 1   2 
KETIADAAN UPAYA HUKUM ATAS PUTUSAN BEBAS DALAM KUHAP BARU DAN RISIKO JUDICIAL ERROR Dharma Setiawan Negara; Erwin Susilo; Joel Niyobuhungiro
Jurnal Hukum Unsulbar Vol. 9 No. 2 (2026): Jurnal Hukum Unsulbar
Publisher : Program Studi Hukum Universitas Sulawesi Barat

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31605/j-law.v9i2.6390

Abstract

Penelitian ini berangkat atas kelemahan dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) Baru yang tidak menyediakan mekanisme korektif terhadap putusan bebas yang mengakibatkan potensi terjadinya judicial error. Permasalahan ini menjadi penting karena putusan bebas dalam KUHAP Baru bersifat final tanpa tersedia upaya hukum, sehingga berpotensi menutup ruang koreksi terhadap kekeliruan hakim. Tujuan dari penelitian ialah untuk menganalisis kekosongan tersebut serta merumuskan konsep pengaturan yang lebih proporsional melalui pendekatan komparatif dengan sistem hukum Belanda. Metode yang digunakan adalah penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, komparatif, kasus, dan konseptual. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa sistem hukum Belanda memberikan ruang mekanisme korektif terhadap putusan bebas melalui banding dan kasasi, sementara KUHAP Baru justru menutup seluruh upaya hukum terhadap putusan bebas. Kondisi ini berimplikasi pada lemahnya kontrol terhadap judicial error serta berpotensi menimbulkan ketidakadilan dalam sistem peradilan pidana. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini menawarkan rekonstruksi norma berupa pemberian ruang upaya hukum banding sebagai mekanisme korektif yang bersifat terbatas dan proporsional. Konsep ini hadir guna menjamin kepastian hukum, perlindungan hak terdakwa, memberikan ruang keadilan bagi korban, dan menjamin putusan yang akuntabel. Dari kajian a quo, penelitian ini memberikan kontribusi teoritis dalam penguatan konsep corrective justice serta kontribusi praktis dalam pembaruan hukum acara pidana di Indonesia.
The First-Offender Paradox in Indonesian Plea Bargaining: Lessons from Italy and Implications for Corruption Cases Erwin Susilo; Dharma Setiawan Negara; Ong Argo Victoria; Joel Niyobuhungiro
Corruptio Vol 7 No 1 (2026)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25041/corruptio.v7i1.5751

Abstract

This study analyzes the regulation of plea bargaining (PB) under Indonesia’s Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), examines the inconsistency in the first-offender requirement under Article 234, and proposes a regulatory model informed by comparison with Italy’s patteggiamento. The study addresses the discrepancy between Articles 78 and 205, which require defendants to be first-time offenders, and Article 234, which does not explicitly impose this requirement. This inconsistency creates legal uncertainty regarding repeat offenders’ eligibility for PB and may result in inconsistent application. The study employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The findings reveal that Indonesia’s PB framework lacks consistency, whereas Italy’s patteggiamento restricts eligibility according to specific offender categories and legal conditions without universally requiring first-offender status. The Italian model serves as a comparative reference rather than a framework for direct adoption, highlighting the importance of clear and coherent eligibility criteria. In Indonesia, adding a first-offender requirement to Article 234 would align it with Articles 78 and 205 and strengthen the internal consistency of PB regulation. The ambiguity surrounding Article 234 also raises concerns about corruption cases, which Article 205 excludes from PB but Article 234 does not expressly address. Accordingly, Article 234 should be revised to specify the first-offender requirement and clarify which offenses are excluded from PB. These amendments should reflect Indonesia’s legal context rather than replicate the Italian model, promoting legal certainty, reducing interpretive differences, and ensuring consistent application of PB within the Indonesian criminal justice system.
Co-Authors Agung Satryo Wibowo Ardica Karunia Pradana Bagus Oktafian Abrianto Budi Santoso Didit Darmawan Dipaajiblana Erwin Susilo Erwin Susilo Erwin Susilo Erwin Susilo Hariani, Mila Joel Niyobuhungiro Joel Niyobuhungiro Khairul Umam Syamsuyar Lufsiana Lufsiana Lufsiana Maytita Tri Hardiyanti Mohamad Farid Muhammad Rafi Muhammad Yusron Maulana El-Yunusi Mujito Mujito Nainggolan, Samuel Dharma Putra Nanang Saputro Agung Widodo Ong Argo Victoria Pratolo Saktiawan Rafadi Khan Khayru Rahayu Mardikaningsih Rommy Hardyansah Suwito Suwito Vivi Ayudya Permatasari Zulfa Aji Rani Isnuitama