Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
0.702
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Ilmu Kepolisian Journal of Law, Poliitic and Humanities Al-Balad : Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara dan Politik Islam
Dyah A, Tata Eliestiana
Unknown Affiliation
Humanities Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 4 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 4 Documents
Search

 1 
KAJIAN YURIDIS ILMU HUKUM PIDANA TENTANG HUBUNGAN PENOLOGI DENGAN ILMU LAINNYA DI IDONESIA Jamaludin, Jamaludin; Dyah A, Tata Eliestiana; Mulyan, Andi; Tradesa, Anggi Purnama
AL-BALAD : Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara dan Politik Islam Vol. 5 No. 1 (2025): Al-Balad : Jurnal Hukum Tata Negara dan Politik Islam
Publisher : PRODI HUKUM TATANEGARA

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59259/ab.v5i1.242

Abstract

Abstrak Ilmu hukum pidana bukan hanya sebatas kajian dogmatis mempelajari dan menjelaskan hukum pidana yang berlaku ( ius constitutum ). Tetapi juga mencakup bidang-bidang mengapa norma yang berlaku itu dilanggar, apa norma itu dilanggar, dan bagaimana upaya agar norma itu tidak dicakup pembahasan bidang inilah yang disebut dengan kriminologi. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan tujuan untuk mengetahui kajian yuridis ilmu hukum tentang hubungan penologi dengan ilmu lainnya di Indonesia. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini yaitu penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan Undang-undang, konteks dan perbandingan hukum. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa hubungan penologi dengan ilmu lainnya di Indonesia berbeda-beda. Penologi dan kriminologi memiliki hubungan yang sangat erat karena studi penologi berbicara mengenai ilmu penghukuman serta keefektifannya sebagai instrumen kontrol terhadap kejahatan. Hubungan penologi dengan ilmu kedokteran forensik yaitu untuk membantu penegakan hukum dan penyelesaian masalah-masalah di bidang hukum pidana. Posisi penologi dalam hukum pidana sangat strategis karena penologi sangat menentukan dalam berhasilnya memberikan sanksi kepada pelaku. Sanksi apa yang tepat untuk pelaku, Serta bagaimana pelaksanaannya dalam hukum menjadi sasaran penologi pidana. Penologi merupakan ilmu tentang pidana dan pemidaannya atau ilmu pengetahuan tentang memperlakukan dan memidana pelaku kejahatan. Sedangkan hubungan penologi dengan ilmu psikiatri kehakiman yaitu sangat membantu penyidik, Jaksa Penuntut Umum dan Hakim dalam menanggani kejahatan yang berkaitan dengan keselamatan jiwa orang. Kata Kunci : Kajian Yuridis, Hukum Pidana, Ilmu Hukum, Penologi
Criminal Liability for Vigilantism Under Articles 351, 170, and 406 KUHP Jamaludin; Dyah A, Tata Eliestiana; Sunardi, Heru; Tradesa, Anggi Purnama
Jurnal Ilmu Kepolisian Vol 19 No 2 (2025): Jurnal Ilmu Kepolisian Volume 19 Nomor 2 Tahun 2025
Publisher : Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Kepolisian

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35879/jik.v19i2.625

Abstract

This study was conducted with the aim of determining criminal liability for the crime of vigilantism (eigenrichting) in criminal law in Indonesia. This study uses a qualitative approach with an orientation towards a deep understanding of the phenomenology of the crime of vigilantism and the form of criminal liability for the perpetrators. Data analysis in this study was conducted using a qualitative legal analysis approach. The results of this study indicate that criminal liability for the crime of vigilantism (eigenrichting) is still enforceable under Indonesian criminal law. Everyone who commits the crime will undergo sanctions and cannot be represented by another person. Criminal liability for the crime of vigilantism (eigenrichting) is indeed not regulated in a limitative manner in the laws and regulations, however in the law there are elements of a crime as stated in the Criminal Code (KUHP), namely in Section 351 concerning Abuse, Section 170 concerning Abuse and Section 406 concerning Destruction. Therefore the perpetrators of the crime of vigilantism can be subject to several Sections above.
Analysis Of The Judge's Ruling Regarding The Indonesian National Arbitration Board (BANI) (Decision Study Number: 305/Pdt.G/BANI/2014/PN Jkt.Utr) Dyah A, Tata Eliestiana; Jamaludin, Jamaludin
Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities Vol. 6 No. 1 (2025): (JLPH) Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities
Publisher : Dinasti Research

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.38035/jlph.v6i1.2509

Abstract

This research was conducted with the aim of finding out: 1) The basis for the judge's considerations in granting the applicant's request in decision number: 305/Pdt.G/BANI/2014/PN Jkt.Utr), 2) Analysis of the case resolution in decision number: 305/Pdt.G/BANI/2014/PN Jkt.Utr). The type of research used in this research is normative legal research using statutory, conceptual and case approaches. The results of this research show that: 1) The judge's basis for granting the Petitioner's petition in Decision Number: 305/Pdt.G/BANI/2014/PN Jkt.Utr was that the judge assumed that BANI Decision Number 513/IV/ARB-BANI/2013 was taken as a result of deception on the part of the Arbitration Petitioner. Then the Arbitration Panel made a real mistake in deciding the case regarding the use of the legal basis for decision making. Apart from that, the judge considers that BANI Decision Number 513/IV/ARB-BANI/2013 has violated the principle of freedom of contract and agreement law as regulated in Article 1338 of the Civil Code and Respondent II as the Decision Panel has given a decision that exceeds the demands in the Application for Arbitration. 2) Analysis of the case resolution regarding Decision Number: 305/Pdt.G/BANI/2014/PN Jkt.Utr), the Petitioner believes that Arbitration Decision No. 513/IV/ARB-BANI/2013 was taken from a ruse. However, the Petitioner did not explain in detail what form of deception was carried out by the Arbitration Panel, so this is a tendentious and far-fetched accusation. There was not a single trick carried out against the litigants. And if it is a trick, then it must be based on a court decision that has permanent legal force. This is based on the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia dated March 30 2009 No. 729K/PDT.SUS/2009.
Analysis Of The Judge's Ruling Regarding The Indonesian National Arbitration Board (BANI) (Decision Study Number: 305/Pdt.G/BANI/2014/PN Jkt.Utr) Dyah A, Tata Eliestiana; Jamaludin, Jamaludin
Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities Vol. 6 No. 1 (2025): (JLPH) Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities
Publisher : Dinasti Research

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.38035/jlph.v6i1.2509

Abstract

This research was conducted with the aim of finding out: 1) The basis for the judge's considerations in granting the applicant's request in decision number: 305/Pdt.G/BANI/2014/PN Jkt.Utr), 2) Analysis of the case resolution in decision number: 305/Pdt.G/BANI/2014/PN Jkt.Utr). The type of research used in this research is normative legal research using statutory, conceptual and case approaches. The results of this research show that: 1) The judge's basis for granting the Petitioner's petition in Decision Number: 305/Pdt.G/BANI/2014/PN Jkt.Utr was that the judge assumed that BANI Decision Number 513/IV/ARB-BANI/2013 was taken as a result of deception on the part of the Arbitration Petitioner. Then the Arbitration Panel made a real mistake in deciding the case regarding the use of the legal basis for decision making. Apart from that, the judge considers that BANI Decision Number 513/IV/ARB-BANI/2013 has violated the principle of freedom of contract and agreement law as regulated in Article 1338 of the Civil Code and Respondent II as the Decision Panel has given a decision that exceeds the demands in the Application for Arbitration. 2) Analysis of the case resolution regarding Decision Number: 305/Pdt.G/BANI/2014/PN Jkt.Utr), the Petitioner believes that Arbitration Decision No. 513/IV/ARB-BANI/2013 was taken from a ruse. However, the Petitioner did not explain in detail what form of deception was carried out by the Arbitration Panel, so this is a tendentious and far-fetched accusation. There was not a single trick carried out against the litigants. And if it is a trick, then it must be based on a court decision that has permanent legal force. This is based on the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia dated March 30 2009 No. 729K/PDT.SUS/2009.
Co-Authors JAMALUDIN Jamaludin . Mulyan, Andi Sunardi, Heru Tradesa, Anggi Purnama