Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Summary: Drawing on the expertise and experience of contributors from a wide range of academic, professional and judicial backgrounds, the Research Handbook on the International Penal System critically analyses the laws, policies and practices that govern detention, punishment and the enforcement of sentences in the international criminal justice context. Comprehensive and innovative, it examines the operation of the international penal system, covering pertinent issues such as non-custodial sanctions, monitoring of conditions of detention, the protection of prisoners under international law and the transfer of prisoners. These aspects are presented in a logical order, linking up with the chronological sequence of the international criminal justice process. Far-reaching, this Handbook also explores broader normative questions related to contemporary human rights law, transitional and restorative justice and victim redress, before exploring contemporary and alternative mechanisms for punishing and overseeing punishment, and possible avenues for development. This up-to-date assessment will provide valuable insights for researchers and students of international criminal law and justice, comparative penal law, penology, prisoners' rights and transitional and restorative justice. Its recommendations for development will also interest international and national officials working in criminal law and justice"

"Undang-undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) mengandung beberapa asas didalamnya, Salah satunya adalah asas diferensiasi fungsional. Asas ini berarti penegasan pembagian tugas dan kewenangan antara jajaran aparat penegak hukum secara instansional. KUHAP meletakan suatu asas 'penjernihan' (clarification) dan ?modifikasi? (modification) fungsi dan wewenang antara aparat penegak hukum. Asas diferensiasi fungsional mulanya bertujuan untuk dipergunakan sebagai sarana koordinasi horizontal dan saling checking antara penegak hukum, terutama antara polisi selaku penyidik dengan jaksa selaku penuntut umum. Berdasarkan pasal 1 butir 1 dan 4 jo pasal 1 butir 6 huruf a jo pasal 13 KUHAP, maka jelas terlihat penjernihan dan pembagian secara tegas antara fungsi dan wewenang polisi sebagai penyidik dan jaksa sebagai penuntut umum serta pelaksana putusan pengadilan. Walaupun asas diferensiasi fungsional ditekankan antara polisi dengan jaksa, namun berpengaruh terhadap semua sub sistem dalam sistem peradilan pidana. Bagi Polri hal itu berakibat menumpuknya penanganan laporan dan pengaduan yang harus ditindaklanjuti yang pada akhirnya menyebabkan kurang maksimalnya pelaksanaan tugas-tugas penyidikan, seperti lambatnya pengiriman Surat Pemberitahuan Dimulainya Penyidikan dan bolak baliknya berkas perkara. Bagi jaksa asas diferensiasi fungsional telah menjadikan spektrum dan cara pandang jaksa dalam memberantas kejahatan menjadi sempit. Hal ini karena jaksa tidak terlibat secara langsung dalam proses penyidikan. Sedangkan pada proses persidangan di pengadilan, hanya tidak lebih dari mengkonfirmasi dan memverifikasi kebenaran isi Berita Acara pemeriksaan yang sebenarnya tidak mengikat. Sedangkan bagi tersangka dan pelapor / pengadu asas diferensiasi fungsional, telah merugikan hak-haknya karena perkaranya tidak dapat diproses berdasarkan peradilan yang cepat, sederhana dan biaya murah. Pada akhirnya asas diferensiasi fungsional menjadi salah satu penyebab over capacity pada lembaga pemasyarakatan. Lembaga ini tidak dapat melakukan pembinaan terhadap narapidana sebagaimana mestinya, bahkan dapat menjadi school of crime yang melahirkan residivis baru. Berdasarkan hal itu asas diferensiasi fungsional dirasa tidak dapat menciptakan keterpaduan antara penyidik dengan penuntut umum. Oleh karena itu perubahan KUHAP merupakan sesuatu yang urgent dan harus segera dilaksanakan.

---

Act No. 8 of 1981 on Procedure of Criminal Law (Criminal Procedure Code) contains some of the principles therein. The one of them is functional differentiation principle. The functional differentiation principle means the affirmation of the division of duties and authority between the law enforcement officers in institutional. The criminal procedure code put a principle of "purification" (clarification) and ?modification? functions and powers among law enforcement officers. The functional differentiation principle originally intended to be used as a means of horizontal coordination and mutual checking between law enforcement agencies, especially between polices as investigator and prosecutors as public prosecutor. Based on criminal procedure code article 1, point 1 and 4 jo article 1 point 6 letter a jo article 13, it is clearly seen purification and distribution between the functions and powers of the police as investigators and prosecutors as a public prosecutor and executor of verdict. Although the principle of functional differentiation stressed in between the investigators and the public prosecutor, but it influent all the sub systems in criminal justice system. For the police, it resulted in deposition of handling reports and complaints that should be followed up, in the end it can be implementation tasks which is not fulfilled maximal, such as the slow delivery of the notice of investigation letter and back and forth the docket. For prosecutors, principle of functional differentiation has made spectrum and perspective in combating crimes prosecutor becomes narrower. This is because prosecutors are not directly involved in investigation process. The trial process in court is nothing more than confirmation and verifying the correctness of the content of the examination dossier which is not binding. At the same time, for the suspect and the complainant, the functional differentiation principle has been detrimental to their rights because the case can't be processed with fast, simple and low cost trial. In the end the principle of functional differentiation be one cause of over capacity in the penitentiary. This institution can not conduct training of prisoners, even can be a school crime that spawned a new recidivist. Based on this principle of functional differentiation deemed not to create integration between law enforcement agencies, especially the investigators with the prosecutors. Therefore, conversion of the criminal procedure code is urgent and should be implemented immediately."

"ABSTRAKPenegakan hukum pidana baik didasarkan pada teori pemidanan dan tujuan pemidanaan serta sistem penegakan hukum pidana melalui Sistem Peradilan Pidana penjatuhan pidana lebih banyak ditujukan untuk kepentingan pelaku, dengan kata lain, tujuan pemidanaan hanya dimaksudkan untuk mengubah perilaku dari pelaku kejahatan, agar tidak mengulangi lagi perbuatannya, sedangkan kepentingan korban kurang diperhatikan. Perkembangan global tentang pemidanaan memunculkan konsep Restorative justice yang dianggap memperhatikan kepentingan korban dan pelaku.Salah satu perwujudan dari Restorative Justice adalah dengan melakukam mediasi penal. Dalam mediasi penal pihak pelaku dan korban dipertemukan untuk membicarakan kepentingan-kepentingan mereka dengan bantuan seorang mediator. Penelitian dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis empiris berupa studi kepustakaan yaitu meneliti dokumen berupa literatur buku-buku, peraturan-peraturan dan pedoman-pedoman, dan juga melakukan wawancara dengan narasumber. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa praktek mediasi penal telah diterapkan oleh masyarakat melalui hukum adat dan aparat penegak hukum mulai dari tingkat penyidikan, tingkat penuntutan maupun dalam pemerikasaan di Pengadilan dalam perkara , meskipun Hukum acara pidana tidak mengatur tentang perihal tersebut, kecuali dalam perkara pidana yang dilakukan oleh anak-anak yang akan berlaku 2 Tahun kemudian berdasarkan undang-undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2012 tentang sistem peradilan anak. Berdasarkan maraknya praktek mediasi penal dalam masyarakat maupun oleh aparat penegak hukum menjadikan mediasi penal suatu kebutuhan sebagai alternative penyelesaian perkara pidana. Perlunya mediasi penal sebagai alternative penyelesaian perkara pidana di Indonesia membuka peluang untuk diaturnya mediasi penal dalam hukum Indonesia khususnya menjadi bagian dari hukum acara pidana. Kebijakan pengaturan mediasi penal pada masa mendatang dalam hukum acara pidana dapat dilakukan pada setiap tingkat pemeriksaan mulai tahap penyidikan, penuntutan maupun oleh Hakim di persidangan serta member peluang untuk melegitimasi mediasi penal yang terjadi dalam masyarakat seperti hukum adat agar mempunyai kepastian hukum.

---

ABSTRACTEnforcement of the criminal law is based on the theory of punishment and sentencing objectives, and criminal law enforcement system through the Criminal Justice System sentences more devoted to the interests of offender, in other words, the purpose of punishment is only intended to change the behavior of offenders, so as not to repeat his actions, while the interests of the victim less attention. Global developments gave rise to the concept of punishment Restorative justice that is considered the interests of victims and offender . The way to create the Restorative Justice is by doing the penal mediation. In penal mediation the offender and the victim met to discuss their interests with the help of a mediator. The study was conducted using empirical legal research methods such as literature study that examined the documents in the form of literature books, regulations and guidelines, as well as interviews with sources. The results showed that penal mediation practice has been adopted by the community through customary law and law enforcement officers from the level of the investigation, the prosecution and the examination in the court case, although the criminal law does not regulate on the subject, except in the case of offenses committed by children who will be valid 2 years later by Law No. 11 Year 2012 concerning the juvenile justice system. Based on penal mediation rampant in society as well as by law enforcement officials to make mediation a requirement as an alternative penal settlement of criminal cases. The need for penal mediation as an alternative to criminal settlement in Indonesia opening up opportunities for the regulation of mediation in penal law in Indonesia, especially being part of the criminal law. Policy settings in the future penal mediation in criminal procedure can be done at any level of scrutiny from the stage of investigation, prosecution and trial by judge and member the opportunity to legitimize the penal mediation that occurred in the community such as customary law in order to have legal certainty."