Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"The dominant approach to evaluating the law on evidence and proof focuses on how the trial system should be structured to guard against error. This book argues instead that complex and intertwining moral and epistemic considerations come into view when departing from the standpoint of a detached observer and taking the perspective of the person responsible for making findings of fact." "Ho contends that it is only by exploring the nature and content of deliberative responsibility that the role and purpose of much of the law can be fully understood. In many cases, values other than truth have to be respected, not simply as side-constraints, but as values which are internal to the nature and purpose of the trial. A party does not merely have a right that the substantive law be correctly applied to objectively true findings of fact, and a right to have the case tried under rationally structured rules. The party has, more broadly, a right to a just verdict, where justice must be understood to incorporate a moral evaluation of the process which led to the outcome. Ho argues that there is an important sense in which truth and justice are not opposing considerations; but rather, principles of one kind reinforce demands of the other." "This book argues that the court must not only find the truth to do justice, it must do justice in finding the truth."

"Praktik pembuktian keberadaan suatu kartel bukanlah merupakan hal yang mudah. Hal ini dikarenakan kasus kartel jarang atau tidak memiliki bukti langsung (direct evidence), mengingat pada umumya perjanjian kartel tidak dibuat berdasarkan perjanjian tertulis. Dikarenakan kesulitan tersebut, munculnya praktik penggunaan indirect evidence sebagai alat bukti pun banyak dilakukan di berbagai negara, didasari pertimbangan bahwa memang sulit memperoleh bukti langsung dari praktik kartel. Indirect Evidence berarti bukti tersebut tidak secara langsung mendeskripsikan istilah perjanjian, namun bisa dalam bentuk menfasilitasi adanya perjanjian, atau pertukaran informasi Pada praktiknya, indirect evidence yang digunakan oleh KPPU adalah hasil analisis terhadap hasil pengolahan data yang mencerminkan terjadinya kartel. Dalam Putusan KPPU 24/KPPU-I/2009, KPPU hanya menggunakan indirect evidence sebagai alat bukti tunggal, KPPU menganalisa bahwa indirect evidence dalam kasus kartel minyak goreng ini adalah pertemuan dan/atau komunikasi baik secara langsung maupun tidak langsung dilakukan oleh para produsen minyak goreng yang membahas mengenai harga, kapasitas produksi, dan struktur biaya produksi yang disinyalir mengarah kepada perjanjian kartel dan perilaku produsen minyak goreng yang mencerminkan adanya price paralellism. Namun dalam penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa penggunaan indirect evidence sebagai alat bukti tunggal didalam Putusan KPPU tidak cukup kuat untuk membuktikan terjadinya kartel. Bahwa untuk melihat telah terjadinya kartel, indirect evidence harus didukung alat bukti lain serta keterangan ahli sehingga pada akhirnya indirect evidence akan menjadi bukti yang kuat dan dapat mengungkap kartel ataupun tindak persaingan usaha tidak sehat lainnya.

---

Practice of proving the existence of a cartel is not easy. it is caused by cartel cases rarely or do not have direct evidence. Generally, the cartel agreement doesn?t based on a written agreement. Due to these difficulties, the rise of the practice of the use of indirect evidence as evidence was mostly done in various countries, based on the consideration, it is difficult to obtain the direct evidence of cartel practices. Indirect Evidence means evidence is not directly describe the terms of the agreement, but it could be inside the form of facilitating the existence of an agreement , or the exchange of information. In fact, indirect evidence used by the Commission that was the result of an analysis of the data processing that reflects the carte . In Law 24/KPPU-I/2009 Commission's Decision, the Commission uses only indirect evidence as the sole evidence.The Commission analyzes that indirect evidence in the case of the oil cartel is meeting and /or good communication, directly or indirectly made by the manufacturer of the oil producers discussing about the price, capacity, and cost structure that allegedly led to the cartel agreement and the behavior of oil producers that reflects the price paralellism. However, in this study it can be concluded that the use of indirect evidence as the sole evidence in the Commission's decisions are not strong enough to prove the cartel. To see that there has been a cartel, indirect evidence must be supported other evidence and expert testimony indirect evidence that in the end will be strong evidence and can uncover cartels or other unfair competition acts."

"Kerusakan lahan gambut kerap terjadi akibat kebakaran lahan di Indonesia. PT Jatim Jaya Perkasa (JJP) merupakan salah satu perusahaan sawit yang lahan gambutnya terbakar pada bulan Juni tahun 2013 silam. Untuk dapat menggugat berdasarkan gugatan perbuatan melawan hukum, Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan harus membuktikan perusakan yang dilakukan oleh PT JJP dengan berdasarkan pembuktian ilmiah dan keterangan ahli. Pembuktian ilmiah tersebut mencakup pendeteksian hotspot, analisa sampel laboratorium, penentuan penyebab kebakaran, penghitungan luas lahan yang terbakar, dan pengukuran kerusakan lahan. Namun masalah di sini terjadi saat Penggugat dan Tergugat mengajukan alat bukti ilmiah yang menguatkan dalil masing-masing, sehingga Hakim dituntut untuk memilih alat bukti ilmiah mana yang akan dipertimbangkan. Skripsi ini bertujuan untuk menjawab pertanyaan berupa, bagaimanakah pembuktian ilmiah dalam kerusakan lahan gambut akibat kebakaran lahan? Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa hakim dapat menilai penerimaan alat bukti ilmiah dengan menggunakan standar Daubert yang memberikan empat kriteria untuk melihat validitas alat bukti. Kriteria tersebut tidak bersifat rigid, melainkan sebuah kerangka ilustratif untuk membangun kepercayaan hakim. Namun penerapan doktrin ini masih memerlukan peran hakim dalam kesediaannya mengadopsi doktrin luar untuk menjawab permasalahan pembuktian ilmiah yang dihadapi.

---

Peat land destruction often occur from land fires in Indonesia. PT Jatim Jaya Perkasa (JJP) is one of the oil palm companies whose peatland was burned down in June 2013.  In order to sue based on tort, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry must prove the damage that is done by PT JJP based on scientific evidence and expert explanation. The scientific evidence includes detecting hotspots, laboratory samples analysis, determining the cause of fire, calculating the burned area, and measuring the land damage. But the problem here occurs when the Plaintiff and Defendant propose scientific evidences that strengthen their respective arguments, so that the Judges are required to choose which scientific evidence to consider. This undergraduate thesis wants to answer a question that is, how is the scientific evidence works in proving peatland destruction due to land fire? The research method used in this thesis is a normative juridical research. This research found that judges can assess the acceptance of scientific evidence using the Daubert standard which provides four criterias to see the validity of evidences. The criteria are not rigid, but in form of illustrative framework to build judge's conviction. But the application of this doctrine still requires the role of the judges in their willingness to adopt foreign doctrine to answer the problems of scientific evidence faced."

"This book was made because of some changes in the legal field. An Oregon statute requires an accused to prove his defense of insanity beyond a reasonable doubt, a familiar concept in an unfamiliar setting. The Supreme Court enunciates the McNabb doctrine for the admission of confessions in the federal courts. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are promulgated. The American LawInstitute recommends that adultery no longer be a criminal offense. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia discards the time-honored right-and-wrong and irresistible impulse tests for insanity. About two-thirds of the present work relates to the law of criminal evidence in general; about one-third relates to evidence in connection with specific crimes. New chapters have been added on scientific detection devices, self-incrimination, and tax fraud cases, and the text and footnotes of the other chapters have been brought up to date."