Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Tulisan ini menganalisis bagaimana upaya mengantisipasi disparitas yang tidak bertanggungjawab pada tindak pidana tertentu dalam sistem peradilan pidana di Indonesia, khususnya terhadap praktik pembentukan pedoman pemidanaan terhadap tindak pidana tertentu yang diberikan wewenangnya kepada Mahkamah Agung dalam bentuk Peraturan Mahkamah Agung (PERMA). Tulisan ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal. Dalam penelitian ini dihasilkan praktik yang dilakukan oleh Mahkamah Agung tersebut dinilai tidak tepat dengan tiga argumentasi yaitu ketidakidealan Mahkamah Agung dalam membuat Pedoman Pemidanaan yang diatur secara rigid apabila merujuk pada praktik baik di negara civil law maupun common law, proses perumusan serta pembentukan PERMA Pedoman Pemidanaan, dan hubungan hakim dengan PERMA Pedoman Pemidanaan. Untuk mengatasi ketidakidealan tersebut, sebenarnya dalam sistem peradilan pidana di Indonesia telah lama mengenal Pedoman Tuntutan yang dimiliki oleh Kejaksaan akan tetapi pedoman tersebut berbentuk Surat Edaran dan Pedoman yang ditujukan untuk internal Kejaksaan saja. Praktik Pedoman Tuntutan tersebut dinilai lebih tepat sebagai upaya untuk mengantisipasi disparitas yang tidak bertanggungjawab dengan empat argumentasi yaitu budaya kerja yang ada di Kejaksaan, sistem perumusan dan pembentukan pedoman tuntutan, hubungan Jaksa dengan pedoman tuntutan, dan hubungan Hakim dengan surat tuntutan yang disampaikan oleh Jaksa Penuntut Umum. Untuk mengatasi kekurangan dari praktik tersebut, maka sebaiknya pedoman tuntutan dibentuk ke dalam Peraturan Kejaksaan karena sifat peraturan yang mengikat secara umum dan berdaya laku keluar agar hakim dapat menggunakan rujukan tersebut sebagai sumber hukum dalam menjatuhkan suatu putusan pidana.

---

This paper analyzes how efforts to anticipate unwarranted disparity of certain crime in the criminal justice system of Indonesia, especially regarding the practice of forming guideline for sentencing certain crime which are given authority to the Supreme Court in the form of Supreme Court Regulations (PERMA). This article was prepared using doctrinal research methods. In this research, it was found that the practice carried out by the Supreme Court is considered inappropriate with three arguments, namely the Supreme Court's lack of idealism in making Sentencing Guideline which are regulated rigidly when referring to on practice in both civil law and common law countries, the process of formulating and establishing PERMA Sentencing Guideline, and the relationship between judges and PERMA Sentencing Guideline. To overcome this lack of ideality, in fact the criminal justice system in Indonesia has long been familiar with the Prosecution Guideline which are owned by the Prosecutor's Office, but these guidelines are in the form of Circulars and Guidelines which are intended for internal Prosecutors only. The practice of the Claims Guidelines is considered more appropriate as an effort to anticipate unwarranted disparity with four arguments, namely the work culture in the Prosecutor's Office, the system for formulating and forming prosecution guideline, the relationship between the Prosecutor and the prosecution guideline, and the Judge's relationship with the demand letter submitted by the General Prosecutors. To overcome the shortcomings of this practice, it would be better if the prosecution guidelines were formed into the Prosecutor's Regulations because the nature of the regulations is generally binding and has the potential to be enforceable so that judges can use these references as a source of law in handing down criminal sentencing."

"ABSTRACTThis article will give some rational and reasonable reasons to answer a question on why it is not necessary to attribute a criminal liability upon a political party, considering the meaningless amount of fine as the main punishment that can be imposed to a corporation which convicted of a crime (corruption). This analysis will be based on economic analysis of law and this article will give some relevant equations and precise calculations to support its stance. However, it doesn't mean that the authors disagree with punishing a political party whose member has committed a corruption. Instead, an insignificant amount of punishment that the anti-corruption law currently regulates and a large sum of money/ assets that a political party may have, are the main factors that cause inefficient enforcement. Therefore, increasing the amount of punishment in the anti-corruption law is the only solution to create a deterrence effect for a corporation, to deter and disincentivise a corporation that wants to commit a corruption."