OPTIMALISASI ASAS OPORTUNITAS PADA KEWENANGAN JAKSA GUNA MEMINIMALISIR DAMPAK PRIMUM REMEDIUM DALAM PEMIDANAAN

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 213-236
Author(s):  
Yodi Nugraha
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
The Public

In the Indonesian criminal justice system, every public prosecutor possesses the authority to cease criminal prosecution in the name of public interest. In contrast, in the Netherland, only the Attorney General (Procureur Generaal) at the Supreme Court has this authority.  This article discusses this authority to cease of terminate criminal prosecution in the name of public interest.  To do this a comparative approach is used in which the ruling of this authority to terminate criminal prosecution as found in the Draft of the Indonesian Criminal Code will be compared against the same regulation and policy used in the Netherlands.  A doctrinal and comparative law approach will be used. One recommendation resulting from this research is the need to re-evaluate the existing procedure and requirement of terminating criminal prosecution in the public interest in the Indonesian context and the introduction of Rechter-Commissaris into the criminal justice system.

scholarly journals PENERAPAN DIVERSI PADA TAHAP PENUNTUTAN DALAM SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA ANAK

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 201
Author(s):  
Ellen Yolanda Sinaga
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Based Instruction

Implementation of diversion by a public prosecutor children, nowadays the mechanism is based on Law of The Republic of Indonesia Number 11 Year 2012 regarding the Juvenile Criminal Justice System. Further provisions concerning the guidelines for the implementation of diversion, ordinances, and coordinate the implementation of diversion stipulated on Indonesian Republic Government Regulation Number 65 in 2015 on the guidelines for the implementation of diversion and treatment of children who are aged 12 years. But the problem until now has not drawn up internal rules to the public prosecutor in the form attorney General of The Republic of Indonesia regulation as the basic for the implementation of the mechanism reffered versioned on Indonesian Republic Government Regulation Number 65 in 2015 on the guidelines for the implementation of diversion and treatment of children who are aged 12 years. The importance of internal rules as the basic for the public prosecutor in the executing diversion, as the uniformity of implementation of the diversion by a public prosecutor children across Indonesia, in order to avoid differences in the implementation mechanisms of diversion, which is still based instruction each child’s direct leadership prosecutor, who do diversion. Further in praction, there are differences in the implementation mechanisms of diversion by a children public prosecutor in Indonesia which resulted in the implementation of the goal of diversion has not been maximally as aspired is to keep children who are dealing with the law, from the adverse effects of the criminal justice system.  Keywords : diversion, juvenile criminal justice system, public prosecutor children

scholarly journals PERANAN KEJAKSAAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA DALAM PEMBERANTASAN KORUPSI DI NEGARA DEMOKRASI (Role of The Attorney General of Indonesia in Eradicating Corruption in State Democracy)

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 15
Author(s):  
Suharyo Suharyo
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Strong Relationship ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Local Officials ◽  
Strategic Position

PERANAN KEJAKSAAN REPUBLIK INDONESIADALAM PEMBERANTASAN KORUPSI DI NEGARA DEMOKRASI(Role of The Attorney General of Indonesia in Eradicating Corruption in State Democracy) The Attorney General of Indonesia plays a strategic position in corruption eradication. Since IndonesiaIndependent Day on 17 August 1945 until now, the attorney general keeps eradicate the corruption. As one of the elements of criminal justice system of the democracy state refers to the Act No.16/2004 on the Attorney General of Republic of Indonesia, and also a concern with the Act No.8/1981 on the Criminal Code (KUHAP). Corruption eradication is ruled and stipulated on the Act No.31/1999 on Corruption Eradication Jo the Act No.20/2001, and supported the Act No.8/2010 on the Criminal Act of Money Laundering . Questions of this research were what obstacles of corruption eradication in attorneys and how to make it effective? It was a normative-juridical method. It was  an impression that the Attorney General has no dare to enforce the law for the elite politician, local officials (governors,majors) because of their strong relationship with. This phenomenon triggered scholars to do long march and protest to the Attorney General to be consistent and responsive in corruption eradication. Good governance and bureaucracy reform had no big impact, the meaning of “Tri Atmaka” and “Tri Karma Adhyaksa” had truly not been absorbed and practiced, yet. Keywords: The Attorney General of Indonesia in eradicating corruption ABSTRAK Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia memegang posisi sangat strategis dalam pemberantasan korupsi. SejakProklamasi Kemerdekaan 17 Agustus 1945 sampai sekarang, Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia terus menerus melakukan pemberantasan korupsi. Sebagai salah satu unsur dari  sistem peradilan pidana (Criminal Justice System) di dalam negara demokrasi Kejaksaan RI mengacu pada Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kejaksaan RI, dan juga memperhatikan Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP). Khusus untuk pemberantasan korupsi, diatur melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tidak Pidana Korupsi no Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001, dan ditunjang Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2010 Tentang Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang. Adapun rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini adalah apakah kendala yang melekat jajaran Kejaksaan dalam pemberantasan korupsi, serta Bagaimana mengefektifkan Kejaksaan RI dalam pemberantasan korupsi. Metode yang dipakai adalah yuridis normatif.Terdapat kesan, Kejaksaan RI sangat tumpul pada pelaku dari elit politik, dan pejabat daerah (Gubernur, Bupati/Walikota) yang mempunyai koneksi politik yang kuat.Sehingga tidaklah mengherankan, apabila di berbagai daerah, muncul aksi-aksi unjuk rasa dari kalangan mahasiswa yang menuntut Kejaksaan RI agar konsisten dan responsif dalam pemberantasan korupsi. Good Governance dan reformasi birokrasi, hanya berpengaruh positif, secara minimal. Makna Tri Atmaka, serta Tri Karma Adhyaksa, kurang diresapi dan kurang  diamalkan secara mendalam. Kata Kunci: Kejaksaan RI dalam pemberantasan korupsi

“Visible” and “Invisible” Victims in the Criminal Justice System

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Armando Saponaro
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Public ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Victim Impact Statement

This chapter outlines the “conflict” and “peace-keeping” victim-oriented justice paradigms. The latter empowers the victims of crime, putting them at the center of an encounter and using interindividual mediation or collective circles to address conflict resolution. Two models are critically discussed in the conflict victim-oriented justice paradigm. The European continental “visible victim” model structures the role of the victim as a full-fledged processual party together with the public prosecutor and offender. In this model, the victim has the same rights and powers of the defendant. The “invisible victim” common law model views the victim as a trial witness, participating, for example, through a victim impact statement (in the United States) or victim personal statement (in the United Kingdom) at the sentencing stage. The visible victim conflict paradigm model enhances a victim's role and involvement in the criminal justice system, offering a solution to existing controversial and critical common law system issues.

scholarly journals The State’s Economic Protection by the Criminal Justice System Corruption: A Case Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-69
Author(s):  
Kamri Ahmad ◽  
Hambali Thalib ◽  
Mursyid Muchtra
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Nickel Mining ◽  
Financial Losses

This study aims to identify efforts to protect the state's economic security through the criminal justice system in the case of nickel mining in Malapulu Block, Kabaena Island, Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. The Supreme Court has decided the case with decision number 2633 K/Pid/Sus/2018. This research was conducted with a qualitative approach through analysis of the description of the prosecutor's indictment and the judge's decision. The results obtained in the study show that the KPK Prosecutor made a mistake by withdrawing the appeal that had been made. This condition results in the lack of consideration made by judges in decision making. Secondly, legal experts do not provide a difference in the meaning of economic and financial losses for the state in judex factie and judex jurist. Third, the indictment by the public prosecutor has not described the form of crime committed as an extraordinary crime. Fourth, there is negligence in the corporate sentence.

scholarly journals The Criminal Justice System in Soviet Russia and the USSR (1917–1953): Emergence, Development and Transfer to the Lithuanian SSR

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-182
Author(s):  
Monika Kareniauskaitė
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Common System ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Revolution

The aim of the article is to analyse the Soviet definition of crime, the structure and logic of Soviet criminal law, and the system of criminal prosecution developed by the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution of 1917, consolidated during the NEP and collectivisation, and reformed by Stalin and Andrey Vyshinsky in the mid-1930s. The research also examines the impact that these concepts, ideas, institutions, legal norms and practices had on newly occupied Soviet colonies, focusing on the case of the LSSR. First of all, the research demonstrates that the main laws, institutions and actors in the Soviet criminal justice system which functioned until the mid-1950s without radical changes were invented and defined just after the Revolution, Civil War and NEP. Impacted by Marxist philosophy, by the traditional Russian peasant mentality and pre-revolutionary Bolshevik experiences, the early Bolshevik criminal justice system already had features which became crucial to the implementation of Stalinist mass repressions. For instance, the criminal code of the RSFSR defined a crime as any act or omission dangerous to the Soviet order and state, but not as an act or omission prohibited by law – this was possible due to the ‘principle of analogy’. The criminal code of 1926, based on Bolshevik legal norms from the period of the Revolution and the Russian Civil War, was not replaced during the legal reform of the mid-1930s. The very same system was transferred to the Lithuanian SSR after the occupation. Despite some institutional differences, the main features did not vary from that of the RSFSR, and the two were linked in the common system, the Russian one having hierarchical superiority. ‘Union’ laws prevailed over republican ones. But in the LSSR, the process of colonisation in the field of the criminal justice system was difficult, due to the strong armed anti-Soviet resistance, and the lack of well-educated and loyal Soviet legal personnel.

Konsep Perlindungan Korban dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Nasional dan Sistem Hukum Pidana Islam

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Vivi Ariyanti
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The State ◽  
Significant Progress ◽  
Current Position ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Public

The current position of victims in the criminal justice system has not been placed fairly, because victims in the judiciary are only represented by public prosecutors who base their charges on statutory rules and facts obtained from witnesses. This paper reviews and compares the Indonesian national criminal justice system and Islamic criminal law system in terms of protecting the rights of victims of criminal acts during and after undergoing the trial process. The study of victims in the Western criminal law system adopted by Indonesia has been so extensive and profound, that it raises its own science called victimology, which is parallel to the science of criminology. Meanwhile Islamic criminal law (al-Fiqh al-Jinayah) still refers to fiqh books written by medieval jurists, so that the study of Islamic criminal law is stagnant and without significant progress. However, both national criminal law and Islamic criminal law, in principle, emphasize that the protection of victims must be balanced between the interests of the victims themselves, the perpetrators of crime, society, the state, and the public interest.

scholarly journals role of the public prosecutor in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 253-263
Author(s):  
Michael C. Kovac
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Common Goal ◽  
The Public

Prosecutors in the United States play multifaceted roles in their criminal justice system. They provide guidance during the investigative stages of cases, lead the prosecution of cases in the country’s adversarial proceedings, police their own profession, and lead legislative efforts aimed at making the system more just for all involved. There are separate prosecuting offices for the separate sovereignties located within the countries. Statutes, constitutions, and case law establish the rights and duties of those separate offices. All prosecuting offices in the United States share the pursuit of justice as their common goal.

scholarly journals Comparison of Rechterlijk Pardon Concept on 2019 Criminal Code Draft and Article 70 Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning Juvenile Criminal Justice System

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 603-622
Author(s):  
Irma Yuliawati
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Physical Development ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Existing Problems ◽  
Sense Of Justice

The formulation of the idea of ​​​​forgiving judges (rechterlijk pardon) in the Draft Criminal Code is motivated by the rigidity and inhumanity of the current Criminal Code. Which resulted in small cases that were decided criminal, because the current Criminal Code does not accommodate the authority of judges to forgive cases that are considered unfit to be sentenced. This modification of the rechterlijk pardon concept is expected to reflect a sense of justice, benefit within the framework of Pancasila as a source of law for the Indonesian nation. In contrast to the concept of rechterlijk pardon in Article 70 of Law no. 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System, which has previously applied the concept, to minimize the imposition of crimes against children which should not be based on appropriate retaliation for the crimes committed, because it will be fatal to the physical and physical development of children. To answer the existing problems the author uses a qualitative approach with normative juridical research on the statute approach, conceptual approach and comparative approach. The use of this normative qualitative analysis method is closely related to the problems discussed in comparative approach and conceptual approach, so that it takes the form of descriptive-analytical. The results of this research comparison show that the forgiveness of judges in the Criminal Code Bill needs to categorize the types of minor/moderate/serious crimes and what crimes are forgiven categorized based on the material law itself must also adjust to the implementing rules.

Reforming the criminal justice system – an ethical leadership approach

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Verl Anderson ◽  
Riki Ichiho
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Ethical Leadership ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Public ◽  
Moral Perspective ◽  
Conceptual Paper ◽  
Practical Implications

Purpose The current criminal justice system is pledged to serve and protect society while preserving the rights of those who are accused. The purpose of this paper is to explore the premise of “innocent until proven guilty” and examine whether this assumption truly prevails under the current criminal justice system, or be modified to accommodate a sliding continuum of virtuosity. Design/methodology/approach This paper is a conceptual paper which relies heavily on the current literature about criminal justice and related ethical issues. Findings The paper argues that today’s criminal justice system fails to meet the standards of the virtuous continuum and that those who oversee that system need to rethink how the system operates and is perceived by the public if they wish the criminal justice system to be perceived as just, fair, and ethically responsible. Research limitations/implications Because this paper is a conceptual paper it does not present research hypotheses. Practical implications This paper suggests that “virtue” and “ethics” must be the foundation upon which the criminal justice system is evaluated, and criminal justice must incorporate an ethical standard which is virtuous and fair to all parties and leaders who oversee that system must meet the standards suggested by the virtuous continuum. Originality/value This paper is among the first to identify the viewpoint of the virtuous perspective, moral perspective, amoral perspective, and immoral perspective in the criminal justice system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document