ebook img

indonesian journal of criminal law studies (ijcls) PDF

113 Pages·2017·3.33 MB·Indonesian
by  
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview indonesian journal of criminal law studies (ijcls)

IJCLS Indonesian Journal Criminal Law Studies of Volume II Nomor 1, Mei 2017 Articles : Basir Rohromana The Application of Participated Doctrine in Corruption (Study Of Decision on Corruption Criminal Act Court at Ia Jayapura District Court) Muhammad Iftar Aryaputra; B. Rini Heryanti; Dhian Indah Astanti Menyorot Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 25/PUU-XIV/2016 Terkait Unsur “Dapat Merugikan Keuangan atau Perekonomian Negara” dalam Perkara Korupsi Hwian Christianto Ajaran Sifat Melawan Hukum Materiil Sebagai Upaya Harmonisasi Ketentuan Hukum Pidana Pornografi Melalui Internet Rahmi Dwi Sutanti Kebijakan Aplikatif Pemberatan Pidana bagi Pelaku Pengulangan Tindak Pidana Denty Suci Mareta Femylia, Muchammad Chasani Putusan Ultra Petita dalam Kasus Pembunuhan di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Timur Wahyu Priyanka Nata Permana Sinkronisasi Penanganan Perkara Pidana yang Dilakukan oleh Subjek Hukum Korporasi Denny Ardiansyah Pencabutan Hak Untuk Memilih Dan Dipilih Bagi Terpidana Tindak Pidana Korupsi Muhammad Ikbal The Implementation of Discretion on Criminal Settlement in The Theft Cases ISSN Online 1478761011 Cetak 1478761608 Kesekretariatan : Gedung K, Dekanat Fakultas Hukum Universitas Negeri Semarang Sekaran Gunungpati Semarang 50229 Telepon +62248507891; +62470709205; Fax. +62248507891 FOCUS AND SCOPE Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law Studies (IJCLS) created to be a means of dissemination of the results of legal research for all researchers who have interest in the field. Through the dissemination of research results in the journal is expected to grow a network of researchers in the field of criminology, criminal law and penal reform according to their research interests. In addition, through the dissemination of the research is expected to develop the jurisprudence of the field of interest. The scope of this journal is the publication of research in the field of criminal law, both written by researchers from the fields of law or other parties whose study is law. This journal is published twice in a year, that is on MAY AND NOVEMBER. This Journal firstly published in November 2016 EDITORIAL TEAM Editor in Chief Cahya Wulandari, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Board Editor Member Barda Nawawi Arief, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Diponegoro Agus Raharjo, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Jenderal Soedirman Ali Masyhar, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Negeri Semarang Indah Sri Utari, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Negeri Semarang Rasdi, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Negeri Semarang Herry Subondo, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Negeri Semarang Managing Editor Anis Widyawati, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Sonny Saptoajie W, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Indung Wijayanto, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Muhammad Azil Masykur, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Benny Sumardiana, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Diandra Preludio, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Ridwan Arifin, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia DAFTAR ISI Basir Rohromana 1-12 The Application of Participated Doctrine in Corruption (Study Of Decision on Corruption Criminal Act Court at Ia Jayapura District Court) Muhammad Iftar Aryaputra; B. Rini Heryanti; Dhian Indah Astanti 13-26 Menyorot Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 25/Puu-Xiv/2016 Terkait Unsur “Dapat Merugikan Keuangan atau Perekonomian Negara” dalam Perkara Korupsi Hwian Christianto 27-39 Ajaran Sifat Melawan Hukum Materiil Sebagai Upaya Harmonisasi Ketentuan Hukum Pidana Pornografi Melalui Internet Rahmi Dwi Sutanti 40-53 Kebijakan Aplikatif Pemberatan Pidana bagi Pelaku Pengulangan Tindak Pidana Denty Suci Mareta Femylia, Muchammad Chasani 54-66 Putusan Ultra Petita dalam Kasus Pembunuhan di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Timur Wahyu Priyanka Nata Permana 67-89 Sinkronisasi Penanganan Perkara Pidana yang Dilakukan oleh Subjek Hukum Korporasi Muhammad Ikbal 90-101 The Implementation of Discretion on Criminal Settlement in The Theft Cases IJCLS II (1) (2017) INDONESIAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW STUDIES (IJCLS) THE APPLICATION OF PARTICIPATED DOCTRINE IN CORRUPTION (STUDY OF DECISION ON CORRUPTION CRIMINAL ACT COURT AT IA JAYAPURA DISTRICT COURT) Basir Rohrohmana * * Lecturer at Faculty of Law, Cenderawasih University Info Artikel Abstract ________________ ___________________________________________________________ Sejarah Artikel: Decision of Criminal Act of Corruption Court at the IA Jayapura District Received March 2017 Court Number 05/Pid.Sus-TPK/2015/PN.Jap, and (2) Decision Number Approved April 2017 06/ Pid.Sus-TPK/2015/PN.Jap. Both decisions show the application of Published May 2017 participated doctrine, both in the indictment, the prosecution of the prosecutor, ________________ and the basis of the judge's judgment to result the decisions to the Keywords: Participated; Corruption; offenders. There are 2 (two) findings to be disclosed in the analysis of these ___________________ decisions are (1) the participated doctrine which is applied apparently in their application are within separate prosecution areas between the two indictments, thereby treating the participants in the participated doctrine equally with the independent offender, even impressed as a convergence offense, (2) with prosecution in the indictment, the prosecutor and judge in applying the participated doctrine in these two decisions tend to be restrictive in view that the offender is compared to the dader not as part of the producer's entity (verzamen term) in which there are qualities of offenders who can be distinguished between pleger, doenpleger, medepleger, uitlokker or medeplichtigheid. © 2017 Universitas Negeri Semarang Jl. Kamp Wolker, Waena Jayapura, 99358 Papua Indonesia Tel/Fax: +62-967-585470, E-mail: [email protected] 1 Basir Rohrohmana / Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law Studies II (1) (2017) INTRODUCTIONS Determining the positions of offenders as above also becomes important, because Criminal Acts of Corruption which in general these participated doctrine are handled through the criminal justice process precisely made to hold accountability of (pre-adjudication process and adjudication) them which enabling the offenders to often reveal criminal act of corruption commit criminal acts, even if their actions conducted by more than one offender. The do not contain all elements of the criminal condition of offenders which are thus in the acts1. It is so hard to imagine that the public criminal law constructed as a "participated prosecutor and the judge to ask criminal doctrine" committing a crime or who is responsibility of each offender of criminal often known as "deelneming". acts of corruption, when there is not clearly The application of participated revealed the position of each doctrine in criminal acts including criminal offender. Because according to Utrecht even acts of corruption has resulted 3 (three) legal though they are not makers that they do not issues, namely (1) it is often difficult to contain all the elements of criminal acts, disclose the complex pattern of relationships they are also responsible or can be held the among the offender of corruption, and (2) accountability of them for the criminal acts, no clarification of the position or because without their participation of course categorization of each offender the criminal acts are never happened2. between (pleger), were told to In connection with the application of do (doenpleger), who participate to conduct the participated doctrine in the criminl acts (medepleger), who persuades of corruption, there are 3 (three) decisions at do (uitlokker), and who helped the IA Jayapura District Court which is conduct (medeplichtige), (3) sometimes in being the focus of the study, namely (1) practice participated doctrine is reduced by Decision Number 05/Pid.Sus identified it with deeds together committing TPK/2015/PN.Jap (2) Decision Number a criminal offense, whereas acts which are 06/Pid.Sus-TPK/2015/PN.Jap. These two did by more than one offenders may be decisions show the application of prosecuted separately, because each participated doctrine, both in the perpetrator satisfies all the formulas of the indictment, the demands of the criminal offense. (requisitoir) of the public prosecutor, as well Three legal issues concerning the as basic consideration of the judge to make application of participated doctrine are a decision that interesting to be analyzed interesting to be disclosed, because in the through the study with entitled Application participated doctrine desires or requires the of Participated Doctrine In Criminal Acts of fulfillment of some elements of the offense Corruption (Case Study of Corruption Court at committed by each offender, not against the IA Jayapura District Court). perfect offense. In addition, some of the offenders may be categorized as indirect offenders (gehilfe) only facilitate or assist the criminal act in this regard criminal acts of 1 E. Utrecht. 2000. The Essence of Series Lecture corruption is not a full offender who meet Criminal Law II. . Surabaya: Pustaka Tinta Mas 2000. p. 9 all the elements of a criminal offense. 2 Ibid 2 Basir Rohrohmana / Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law Studies II (1) (2017) RESEARCH METHODS or deelneming can be said that deelneming on divulging strafbaarfeit or delict there when The method used in this research is a delict snagged some people or more than normative legal research that examines the one4. application of legal principles and positive History records that the participated legal norms related to the application of doctrine was first the brainchild of Von particited doctrine in criminal acts of Feuerbach who difference in the two forms corruption. As a type of normative legal of the participants, namely (a) they are research, then put forward the study of legal directly trying the criminal act, this is materials. The legal materials used are (1) called auctores or urheber, and (b) they are primary legal materials, (2) secondary legal who only help the businesses, those who are materials, (3) tertiary legal not directly sought, is materials. Primary legal materials are (1) called gehilfe. Urheber is conducting the UUTPK, Criminal Code, (2) Corruption initiative, and gehilfe is assisting5. Court's Decision at IA Jayapura District The development of the participated Court in the years 2014-2015. While doctrine then inserted in Article 55 and secondary legal material are the result of Article 56 of the Criminal Code and is previous research that examines the divided into urheber consists of application of participated doctrine in doing (pleger), which have (so) do (doen criminal acts of corruption, while tertiary pleger), who helped conduct (medepleger) and legal materials are a legal dictionary and were persuaded (so do) called uitlokker, legal encyclopedia that are used to help while Article 56 of the Criminal Code be explaining legal terms and concepts of referred to those who are helping or called participated doctrine in criminal acts of gehilfe (medeplichtige)6. corruption. Legal material was collected The division of the participant through a legal literature, and analyzed by offenders between descriptive analysis technique. auctores or urheber with gehilfe, in the opinion of other scholars such as that developed in FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS Germany participant offenders into three (3) parts, 1. Participated Doctrine in Criminal Law namely tater (maker), anstifter (promoters), In the criminal law participated and gehilfe (maid)7. In terms of the doctrine known as several terms such as (1) relationship of each participants to the intervene in a criminal act (Tresna), (2) co- offense, then there are three (3) form a act offense (Karni), (3) participate (Utrecht), relationship that are: (4) deelneming (Netherlands), complicity a. Some people do a delict or offense; (British), Teilnahme/Tatermehrheit (Germany ), Participation (France)3. Satochid Kartanegara define participated doctrine 4 Satochid Kartanegara. Criminal Law A Collection of Lecture Part One. Balai Lektur Mahasiswa, Without Year, p. 418 3 Barda Nawawi Arief. 2007. Essence of Lecture on 5 E. Utrecht. 2000. The Essence of Series Lecture Advanced Criminal Law, Semarang: Lecture Material Criminal Law II. Surabaya: Pustaka Tinta Mas. p. 7 Supply Agency, Faculty of Law, University of 6 Ibid. p. 8 Diponegoro. p. 35 7 Barda Nawawi Arief, Op. Cit. p. 36 3 Basir Rohrohmana / Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law Studies II (1) (2017) b. perhaps only one person who has offenders (daders) and help to the "willing" and "concocting" offense, conduct (medeplichters)10. but this acts are not did by alone, but The next review of the participated they use other people to carry out the doctrine focused on criteria for offense; categorization of each participant offender c. may also happen that one who commits referred to in Article 55 and Article 56 of offense, while other people "help" to the Criminal Code, namely (1) pleger (actor), carry out the offense8. (2) doenpleger (those who order us to do), The relationship of each participant to (3) medepleger (the people who participate), the offense may have a relationship and (4) uitlokker (promoters), (5) the people who even become a benchmark to determine the are helping (medeplichtige). liability of the participants against the A. Pleger offense. According Satochid Kartanegara in Pleger is the person who does a deed looking at the relationship of each by self that meet the formulation of the participant to the responsibilities of the offense, in practice difficult to determine, criminal, it is by its nature deelneming, it can especially in the case of the legislators did be divided into (1) The forms not specify exactly who is the of deelneming which stand-alone, in this offender. According to Barda Nawawi Arief form the responsibility of each participant on this matter there are two opinions. (1) appreciated alone, (2) The forms of The Indonesian judiciary: the makers (in the deelneming who do not stand alone in this narrow sense that are the offenders) are case are also called "accessori deelneming", the those which, according to the intent of accountability of participants that one hung lawmakers should be deemed have on deeds of the other participants, namely responsibility, (2) The Netherlands doing a deed that can give a sanction to one Judiciary dader (in the narrow sense) is the participant, so that the other participant was person who has the power or ability to put also punished9. However Satochid an end to the offense that forbidden, but still Kartanegara did not give further allowing forbidden circumstances to explanation on matters which of these two continue11. To overcome the difficulties that properties deelneming (stand-alone and does good practice to follow the opinion of not stand alone) can be used, it is in the January Rummelink about pleger as practice of criminal justice as if handed over follows: to the criminal justice apparatus to use The provisions of Article 47 it. Linkages with it Satochid Kartanegara Sr. (Article 55 of the Indonesian Criminal explained that the provisions of the Code) first stipulates who committed a Criminal Code does not differentiate criminal act thoroughly. Even when the between deelneming which are stand-alone offenders (pleger) are not the person who and deelneming which are not stand- participate (deelnemer), may be able to alone (zelfstandige understand why they need to be called. deelneming and onzelfstandige deelneming), but Offenders, in addition to other parties only held a breakdown between the participating or being involved in a criminal 8 Satochid Kartanegara, Loc. Cit. 10 Ibid 9 Ibid. p. 419 11 Barda Nawawi Arief, Op Cit. p. 38 4 Basir Rohrohmana / Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law Studies II (1) (2017) act they were doing, would be convicted tool), (3) the equipment used can not be with them as the offender (dader), while the accounted for, a third element which is the way to participate made and the sign characteristic of doenpleger15. responsibility to it, also determined by its relation with criminal offenses committed C. Medepleger by the main offender because it is the In Ontwerp Regerings Ordinance or offender (pleger), is a person who meets all the Plan of Government Regulation in the elements of the offense (also in the form Netherlands, medeplegen at the first of trial or preparation), including when called opzettelijk medewerken or deliberately done through other people or their help to do, deliberately cooperation with the subordinates (intended here in connection offenders. Therefore there are the challenge with the offenses functional), because it is of Tweede de Kamer because these terms understandable why the offenders are difficult to distinguish from always referred by lawmakers when they the medeplichtigheid (co-) then the formulate regulations and establish criminal government in this case the Ministry of penalties12. Justice of Netherlands replaces it with Based on Rummelink's point above, it medeplegen as also found in Article 55 of is clear that pleger is a person who is the Criminal Code. capable to realize or can fulfill all elements Muhammad Ainul Syamsu view that of the offense, but in its implementation if compared to other forms of participation, involves other people especially in 2 (two) participated doctrine (medeplegen) has a things: (1) how to commit criminal act, and different characteristic because it requires (2) responsibility against them for a crime. the joint action (meedoet) between the main offender (pleger) the people who are B. Doenpleger participate (medepleger)16. Satochid Kartanegara call According to Barda Nawawi Arief the doenpleger as Mideelijke Daderschap doctrine regulations do not give a definition which have meaning "act with of medepleger (those who intermediaries"13. In doenpleger recognized participated), Memorie van Toelicting declare the existence of two (2) parties, namely (1) those who participate do (medepleger) is the direct offender (onmiddelijke dader, auctor person who intentionally do or co-working physicus, manus ministra), (2) indirect co-occurrence17. offender (middelijke dader, doenleger, auctor The views of Pompe (in Barda intelectualis/moralist, manus ministra)14. Nawawi Arief) medepleger are helped do Doenpleger have three (3) elements, something happening criminal offense with namely (1) the equipment used is human, there are three (3) possibilities, namely: (2) the equipment used that do (not a die 12 Jan Rummelink. 2003. Criminal Law, 15 Ibid. p. 39 Commentary on Articles Foremost of the Criminal Code of 16 Muhammad Ainul Syamsu. 2014. Shifting Netherlands and its equivalent in the Criminal Code of Participated Doing the Doctrine of Participation, Critical Indonesia, translated by Pascal Trustam Review Based Separation Theory of Criminal Act and Moeliono. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama. p. 308 Criminal Liability. Jakarta: Prenadamedia 13Satochid Kartanegara, Op. Cit. p. 422 Group. p. 59 14Barda Nawawi Arief, Op. Cit. p. 38 17 Barda Nawawi Arief, Op. Cit. p. 41 5 Basir Rohrohmana / Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law Studies II (1) (2017) 1. Each of them fulfilled all the elements in D. Uitlokker the formulation of the offense, two Article 55 (2) of the Criminal Code people by cooperating in the theft of a tends to regulate the agitator responsible for rice warehouse, committing a criminal offense, with 2. one meets all the elements of the offense measures prescribed by law (limitative). The and the others are not, for example, two limitative measures referred to (1) by people pickpocket (A and B) mutually granting, (2) promises, (3) abuse of cooperate, A hit or crash the people authority, (4) by force, (5) by threat, (6) by who become the target, while B took the deception, (7) or by giving a means or wallet of target. information deliberately advocating or 3. none of the offenders fulfilled the persuading (committing) a criminal offense elements of the offense entirely, but they shall be criminally charged as a criminal are jointly to realize the offense, for offender. Rummelink views that happenings example in the theft with damage of uitlokker not the person induced to (Article 363 paragraph (1) to 5 of the commit a crime, but rather that the offense Criminal Code), one is oversee the occurred because of suggestion or suroundings, while the others entered persuasion of others, the object is not the house and pick up the goods and (solely) the person who persuaded then received to his friend who oversee (provoked), but also offenses provoked21. the suroundings18. Furthermore, Jan Rummelink Terms of the medepleger are (1) there is proposed 4 (four) requirements that must be a conscious cooperation (bewuste met with criminal indictment, namely: samenerking), (2) there is joint physical 1. Deliberate action to mobilize another implementation (gezamenlijkeuitvoering/physi person to do an act that is prohibited by eke samenwerking)19. Note from Jan law with the assistance of means as Rummelink that in the case of stipulated in law; the medepleger requirement that there should 2. The decision to be willing on the other be no plan or agreement made side must be raised. This requirement is beforehand. On the contrary, it needs to be dealing with psychic causality; proven that there is mutual understanding 3. A person who is moved (persuaded or among fellow offenders and when the provoked) to embody a plan instilled by offenses are realized each of the actors a persuader or activator to commit a cooperates to achieve the same goal20. crime or at least conduct an experiment to do a crime. A bad faith of the mover is not enough, it must be manifest into action; 4. Undoubtedly persuaded people should 18 Ibid . p. 42 19 Ibid be held criminally responsible, if not 20 Jan Rummelink, Op. Cit. P. 314, in this case then it does not appear the inducement also reveals the decision Rummelink HR Arrest on but the effort told to do (doenplegen)22. February 9, 1914, that there is no participation if one person wanted to persecute perpetrators, while the other players just about to commit murder. Each of these actors who cooperate do not need to do a whole set of action implementation and does not need to meet all of the characteristics as actors, such as 21 Ibid . p. 328 officers or party that controls the material. 22 Ibid. 6

Description:
“Dapat Merugikan Keuangan atau Perekonomian Negara” dalam Perkara Korupsi. Hwian Christianto. Ajaran Sifat Indung Wijayanto, Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia. Muhammad Azil Masykur, Fakultas .. sign characteristic of doenpleger15. C. Medepleger. In Ontwerp
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.