Maharani, Asari Suci
Unknown Affiliation

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

Reinforcing the Legal Basis of Undercover Buy as an Investigative Method in Criminal Procedure Maharani, Asari Suci; Supardi, Supardi
Legitimasi: Jurnal Hukum Pidana dan Politik Hukum Vol. 14 No. 1 (2025)
Publisher : Islamic Criminal Law Department, Faculty of Sharia and Law, Universitas Islam Negeri Ar-Raniry

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22373/legitimasi.v14i1.30053

Abstract

In an effort to combat illegal drug trafficking, Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics authorizes the National Narcotics Agency (BNN) to conduct special investigation techniques, one of which is the undercover buy technique. The research problem studied is how to regulate undercover buy techniques in the legal system in Indonesia and how to formulate the regulation of undercover buy provisions in an ideal criminal procedure law that does not conflict with legal principles. This study is a normative legal study that uses a regulatory approach and a contextual approach. The data sources are from regulations and legal literature. The results of the study indicate that the regulation of undercover buy techniques is normatively contained in the Narcotics Law and the implementation instructions that have been updated through the Decree of the Head of BNN Number SKEP/1205/IX/2000. However, these regulations are still minimal and not comprehensive, thus creating legal limitations that have the potential to cause investigators to apply for permits, especially in obtaining valid evidence according to criminal procedure law
Revitalization of Indonesian criminal law through the acknowledgment of living law: An investigation of the Sigajang Laleng Lipa’ customary law Harefa, Beniharmoni; Fernando, Zico Junius; Maharani, Asari Suci; Anditya, Ariesta Wibisono; Humana, Sri
Jurnal Hukum Novelty Vol. 15 No. 2 (2024)
Publisher : Universitas Ahmad Dahlan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26555/jhn.v15i2.28234

Abstract

Introduction to the Problem: The research article examines the Sigajang Laleng Lipa’ tradition in South Sulawesi’s Bugis community as a "living law" under Indonesia's new criminal code, specifically Article 2. The tradition’s violent nature, often leading to fatal outcomes, may conflict with principles in the updated code. Purpose/Study Objectives: The primary objective of this study is to conduct an analysis of criminal law regulations in Indonesia regarding the Sigajang Laleng Lipa’ tradition and assess its alignment with Article 2 of the new Indonesian Criminal Code. The study aims to understand whether this traditional conflict resolution mechanism meets the legal standards set out in the new code, especially concerning the concept of living law. Design/Methodology/Approach: This research employs a normative juridical method with a statutory and conceptual approach to legal recognition in Indonesian criminal law. Secondary data, gathered through literature sources like books and journals, facilitates an in-depth examination of the Sigajang Laleng Lipa’ tradition and the Indonesian criminal code. The doctrine of proportionality guides this study, emphasizing that punishment should match the crime to ensure justice and prevent excessive penalties. Findings: The findings reveal that the Sigajang Laleng Lipa’ tradition, despite its historical and cultural significance in the Bugis community, involves violent practices that have led to fatal consequences. Moreover, it is observed that this tradition does not fulfil the criteria set forth in Article 2, Paragraph (2) of the new Criminal Code. This mismatch highlights a significant challenge in incorporating living law traditions into the modern legal framework of Indonesia. Due to its inconsistency with philosophical, juridical, and sociological principles, the tradition cannot be sustained. Consequently, its use as a punitive measure is unjustifiable, as it does not effectively achieve criminal justice objectives and provides minimal social benefit, lacking contribution to crime prevention efforts. Paper Type: Research Article