Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"This book arises from the lawsuit brought by Tate & Lyle against companies accused of infringing its patents for sucralose, the sweet ingredient in the artificial sweetener SPLENDA which is made by chlorinating sugar. From a 1958 undergraduate intern witnessing the pioneering experiments on sugar chlorination, to being the 1991 recipient of the world’s premiere prize for carbohydrate chemistry, Fraser-Reid was groomed for his role as expert witness in the mentioned lawsuit. Nevertheless, it seems more than his career links Fraser-Reid to the case."

"The expert testimony is a potential problem in the future due to the impact of the advancementof science and technology. This paper examines the place of expert witness to be considered asone of the evidence in criminal case investigation and criminal court. It is argued that expertqualifications should be determined based on formal education, professional experiences, and therelevance of his expertise with the case. The Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) does not restrictthe necessary knowledge, so that the expert testimony about criminal law can also becomeevidence. However, as one of the evidence that can punish or relieve someone,a testimony statedby an expert should be neutral and objective. This study is descriptive analytic using normativejuridical literature and empirical data. It also uses the primary data through guided in-depthinterview to the judges, public prosecutors, lawyers, and criminal law experts.Kesaksian ahli akan menjadi persoalan di masa mendatang karena adanya perkembanganilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi. Tulisan ini membahas mengenai posisi saksi ahli yangdipertimbangkan sebagai salah satu bukti yang digunakan dalam penyelidikan kasus pidanadan peradilan pidana. Tulisan ini berargumentasi bahwa kualifikasi ahli harus ditentukanberdasarkan pendidikan formal, pengelaman profesional, dan relevansi keahlian terhadap kasusyang ditangani. Karena Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) tidak membatasipengetahuan yang diperlukan, maka kesaksian ahli mengenai hukum pidana juga dapatdipandang sebagai bukti. Akan tetapi, sebagai salah satu bukti hukum yang dapat digunakanuntuk menghukum atau membebaskan seorang terdakwa, kesaksian harus berdasarkanargument ilmiah. Studi ini adalah analisis deskriptif menggunakan literatur hukum normatifdan data empirik. Selain itu, studi ini juga menggunakan data primer yang dikumpulkan melaluiwawancara mendalam yang terstruktur kepada para hakim, jaksa, pengacara, dan ahli hukum."

"Indonesia menganut sistem pembuktian peradilan pidana dengan negatief wettelijk, di mana ketentuan mengenai alat bukti yang sah dan diakui diatur secara limitatif di dalam KUHAP. Alat bukti berupa keterangan ahli di dalam KUHAP merupakan alat bukti baru karena sebelumnya tidak dicantumkan di dalam HIR. Sampai dengan saat ini, KUHAP masih belum mengatur secara jelas perihal kualifikasi dari ahli dalam memberikan keterangan ahli. Penelitian ini kemudian melakukan perbandingan aturan mengenai kualifikasi ahli di persidangan perkara pidana antara Indonesia, Amerika Serikat, dan Belanda. Pada Putusan Nomor 300/Pid.B/2013/PN.Mpw dan Putusan Nomor 777/Pid.B/2016/PN.JKT.PST dihadirkan beragam ahli dengan latar belakang keahlian yang berbeda-beda. Dari putusan tersebut, dapat terlihat bahwa pada prakteknya dibutuhkan standar serta kualifikasi tertentu terhadap ahli. Selain itu, kedua putusan tersebut juga mencerminkan bagaimana kekuatan mengikat keterangan ahli. Penelitian ini berkesimpulan bahwa Indonesia memerlukan aturan khusus perihal kualifikasi ahli dan membentuk suatu lembaga daftar ahli nasional yang terintegrasi.

---

Indonesia adheres to a criminal justice evidence system with a negative wettelijk, in which the provisions regarding legal and recognized evidence are regulated in a limited manner in the Criminal Procedure Code. Evidence in the form of expert testimony in the Criminal Procedure Code is new evidence because it was not previously included in the HIR. Until now, the Criminal Procedure Code has not clearly regulated the qualifications of experts in providing expert testimony. This study then compares the rules regarding expert qualifications in criminal case trials between Indonesia, the United States, and the Netherlands. In Decision No. 300/Pid.B/2013/PN.Mpw and Decision No. 777/Pid.B/2016/PN.JKT.PST, various experts with different expertise backgrounds were presented. From the decision, it can be seen that in practice certain standards and qualifications are needed for experts. In addition, the two decisions also reflect the binding power of expert testimony. This study concludes that Indonesia needs special regulations regarding expert qualifications and establishes an integrated national expert list agency."