cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Rustamaji
Contact Email
verstek@mail.uns.ac.id
Phone
+6285865999842
Journal Mail Official
verstek@mail.uns.ac.id
Editorial Address
Fakultas Hukum Universitas Sebelas Maret Gedung 3, Departemen Hukum Acara Alamat: Ir. Sutami No. 36A,Kentingan, Surakarta
Location
Kota surakarta,
Jawa tengah
INDONESIA
Verstek
Published by Universitas Sebelas Maret
ISSN : -     EISSN : 23550406     DOI : https://doi.org/10.20961/jv.v9i3.55027
Core Subject : Humanities, Social,
Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
Jurnal Verstek is a peer-reviewed journal published by Procedural Law Department, Faculty of Law, Universitas Sebelas Maret three times a year in April, August, and December. This Journal aims primarily to facilitate undergraduate students paper over current developments on procedural law issues in Indonesia as well as to publish innovative legal researches concerning Indonesian procedural laws and legal system. It provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to public support a greater global exchange of knowledge. The scope of the articles published in this journal deal with a broad range of topics in the fields of Procedural Law, included but not limited to legal construction of procedural law, critical construction of procedural law in practice, trends and changes in procedural law, and the technical challenges faced in proedural law.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 2 Documents
 1 
Search results for , issue "Vol 9, No 3 (2021)" : 2 Documents clear
PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM DALAM MENGABULKAN PRAPERADILAN ATAS DASAR KETIDAKTERPENUHAN PASAL 17 DAN PASAL 21 AYAT (1) KITAB UNDANG-UNDANG HUKUM ACARA PIDANA (KUHAP) DALAM PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NEGERI DENPASAR NOMOR 18/PID.PRA/2017/PN.Dps Ghina Yunita Priyanka
Verstek Vol 9, No 3 (2021)
Publisher : Sebelas Maret University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (440.556 KB) | DOI: 10.20961/jv.v9i3.55045

Abstract

ABSTRAKPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah pertimbangan hakim dalam mengabulkan praperadian atas dasar ketidakterpenuhan Pasal 17 dan Pasal 21 ayat (1) KUHAP dalam Putusan Nomor 18/Pid.Pra/2017/PN.Dps. sudah sesuai dengan ketentuan KUHAP, selain itu penelitian ini juga bertujuan untuk menambah dan memperluas pengetahuan, pemahaman, dan wawasan mengenai alat bukti untuk melakukan penangkapan dan penahanan sesuai dengan Pasal 17 dan Pasal 21 ayat (1) KUHAP. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif atau doktrinal bersifat presfektif, meneliti mengenai pertimbangan hakim mengenai praperadilan atas dasar ketidakterpenuhan Pasal 17 dan Pasal 21 ayat (1) KUHAP dalam Putusan Nomor 18/Pid.Pra/2017/PN/Dps dengan ketetuan KUHAP. Teknik pengumpulan sumber penelitian yang digunakan yaitu studi kepustakaan dan rujukan internet. Analisis penelitian yang digunakan silogisme deduksi dengan pengumpulan sumber penelitian untuk menafsirkan norma terkait. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan bahwa pertimbangan hakim dalam mengabulkan praperadilan dalam putusan ini juga sudah sesuai dengan ketentuan KUHAP karena penetapan Tersangka mengandung cacat formal. Penetapan tersangka sudah memenuhi “bukti permulaan yang cukup” dan “bukti yang cukup” sebagaimana tercantum pada Pasal 17 dan Pasal 21 ayat (1) KUHAP yaitu minimal 2 (dua) alat bukti yang sah. Namun, alat bukti yang didapatkan oleh Penyidik (in casu Termohon) tidak memiliki relevansi dengan pasal-pasal yang didakwakan kepada Para Pemohon. Kualitas bukti permulaan juga merupakan suatu hal yang penting demi mencapai asas kepastian hukum yang adil.Kata Kunci : pertimbangan hakim, praperadilan, bukti permulaan yang cukup, bukti yang cukup ABSTRACTThis study aims to determine whether the judges' consideration in granting pretrial is based on the incompliance of Article 17 and Article 21 section (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code in Decision Number 18 / Pid.Pra / 2017 / PN.Dps. In accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, besides this research also aims to increase and broaden the knowledge, understanding, and insight regarding evidence to make arrests and detention in accordance with Article 17 and Article 21 section (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This research is a normative or doctrinal legal research with a perspective, examining the judges' consideration regarding pretrial based on the non-compliance with Article 17 and Article 21 section (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code in Decision Number 18 / Pid.Pra / 2017 / PN / Dps with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Research source collection techniques used are literature studies and internet references. Analysis of the research used the deduction syllogism by gathering research sources to interpret related norms. Based on the results of the study it can be concluded that the consideration of judges in granting pretrial in this decision is also in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code because the determination of the suspect contains formal defects. Determination of the suspect has fulfilled "sufficient preliminary evidence" and "sufficient evidence" as stated in Article 17 and Article 21 section (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code which is a minimum of 2 (two) valid evidences. However, the evidence obtained by the Investigator (in casu Respondent) has no relevance to the articles charged to the Petitioners. The quality of preliminary evidence is also important for achieving the principle of fair legal certainty.Keyword : judge's consideration, pretrial, sufficient preliminary evidence, sufficient    evidence
UPAYA TERDAKWA MENGHADIRKAN SAKSI MERINGANKAN DALAM PERKARA PERDAGANGAN ORANG DITINJAU DARI KUHAP (STUDI PUTUSAN NOMOR 49/PID.SUS/2018/PN.SMG) Sintya Pungki Oktavia
Verstek Vol 9, No 3 (2021)
Publisher : Sebelas Maret University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (443.001 KB) | DOI: 10.20961/jv.v9i3.55061

Abstract

 ABSTRAKPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui kesesuaian upaya Terdakwa dalam menghadirkan saksi dan ahli yang meringankan di persidangan perkara perdagangan orang dalam Putusan Nomor 49/Pid.Sus/2018/PN.Smg dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif bersifat deskriptif, dengan pendekatan kualitatif. Dalam penelitian ini penulis menggunakan jenis data sekunder dan menggunakan bahan hukum primer dan sekunder. Bahan hukum primer yang berasal dari peraturan perundang-undangan dan putusan dan bahan hukum sekunder yang diperoleh dari  semua publikasi tentang hukum dan merupakan dokumen-dokumen resmi seperti buku-buku, jurnal, kamus hukum dan bahan dari media internet. Teknik pengumpulan data yang digunakan adalah studi pustaka, sehingga penulisan hukum ini kemudian dipahami sebagai penulisan kepustakaan, yaitu penelitian teradap data sekunder. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa upaya terdakwa dalam menghadirkan saksi dan ahli yang meringankan telah sesuai dengan Pasal 65 KUHAP dan nilai kekuatan pembuktiannya telah sesuai dengan Pasal 159 dan Pasal 160 KUHAP.Kata Kunci : Upaya terdakwa, Saksi meringankan, Perkara perdagangan orang. ABSTRACTThis study aims to determine the suitability of the Defendant's attempt in presenting witnesses and experts who have mitigated in the trial of human trafficking in Judge Decision Number 49 / Pid.Sus / 2018 / PN.Smg with Act No. 8 of 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure. This research is a descriptive normative legal research, with a qualitative approach. In this study the authors used secondary data types and used primary and secondary legal materials. Primary legal materials derived from laws and regulations and secondary legal materials are obtained from all legal publications and are official documents such as books, journals, legal dictionaries and materials from internet media. The data collection technique used is literature study, so that the writing of this law is then understood as writing literature, namely research on secondary data. Based on the results of this study it can be concluded that the defendant's efforts in presenting witnesses and mitigating experts were in accordance with Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the strength of the evidence was in accordance with Article 159 and Article 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Keywords : Defendant’s attempt, Mitigating witness, Human Trafficking case.

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 2

 1 

Filter by Year

2021 2021


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol 12, No 4: OKTOBER - DESEMBER 2024 Vol 12, No 3: JULI - SEPTEMBER 2024 Vol 11, No 4 (2023) Vol 11, No 3: 2023 Vol 11, No 2: 2023 Vol 11, No 1: 2023 Vol 11, No 1: JANUARI - APRIL 2023 Vol 10, No 4: 2022 Vol 10, No 3: 2022 Vol 10, No 2: 2022 Vol 10, No 1 (2022): JANUARI - APRIL Vol 10, No 1: 2022 Vol 9, No 4: 2021 Vol 9, No 3 (2021) Vol 9, No 3: 2021 Vol 9, No 2: 2021 Vol 9, No 2 (2021) Vol 9, No 1: 2021 Vol 9, No 2: MEI - AGUTUS Vol 8, No 3 (2020): DESEMBER JURNAL VERSTEK VOL. 8 NO. 3 ( SEPTEMBER - DESEMBER 2020 ) Vol 8, No 2 (2020): AGUSTUS Vol 8, No 1 (2020): APRIL Vol 8, No 3: SEPTEMBER - DESEMBER Vol 8, No 2: MEI - AGUSTUS Vol 8, No 1: JANUARI-APRIL Vol 7, No 3 (2019): DESEMBER Vol 7, No 2 (2019): AGUSTUS Vol 7, No 2 (2019) Vol 7, No 1 (2019): Foreword Vol 7, No 1 (2019): APRIL Vol 7, No 3: SEPTEMBER - DESEMBER Vol 7, No 2: MEI - AGUSTUS Vol 7, No 1: JANUARI-APRIL Vol 6, No 3 (2018) Vol 6, No 3 (2018): DESEMBER Vol 6, No 2 (2018): AGUSTUS Vol 6, No 2 (2018) Vol 6, No 1 (2018) Vol 5, No 3 (2017) Vol 5, No 2 (2017) Vol 5, No 1 (2017) Vol 4, No 3 (2016) Vol 4, No 2 (2016) Vol 4, No 1 (2016) Vol 3, No 2 (2015) Vol 3, No 1 (2015) Vol 2, No 3 (2014) Vol 2, No 2 (2014) Vol 2, No 1 (2014) Vol 1, No 3 (2013) Vol 1, No 2 (2013) Vol 1, No 1 (2013) More Issue