{"title":"Kewajiban Penyidik Dalam Memanggil Dan Memeriksa Saksi A De Charge","authors":"Mochammad Zulfi Yasin Ramadhan","doi":"10.51749/jphi.v2i2.38","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Investigators also have an obligation to serve the interests of the the suspect, when they ask to be presented with a witness who according to their version can help to break the elements or discharge them from the suspicion, this kind of witness is known as A De Charge (Exoneration Witness). The problem arises how to assess and screen and summon an a de charge witnesses. Investigators must have a clear and complete ground for implementing this provision. Based on that issue, the problem formulations in this study are as follows: (1) What are the criteria for a de charge witnesses who can be examined by investigators? (2) What are the sanctions for investigators when refusing to call and examine a de charge witnesses? The research method used in this paper is a normative research method with a statutory and conceptual approach. The results show that the neglect of the a de charge witness examination has made the norms governing the examination of a de charge witnesses becomes less crucial, which should receive serious attention in investigations for the realization of a criminal justice that upholds the principle of fair trial.\n ","PeriodicalId":146948,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Penegakan Hukum Indonesia","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Penegakan Hukum Indonesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51749/jphi.v2i2.38","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Investigators also have an obligation to serve the interests of the the suspect, when they ask to be presented with a witness who according to their version can help to break the elements or discharge them from the suspicion, this kind of witness is known as A De Charge (Exoneration Witness). The problem arises how to assess and screen and summon an a de charge witnesses. Investigators must have a clear and complete ground for implementing this provision. Based on that issue, the problem formulations in this study are as follows: (1) What are the criteria for a de charge witnesses who can be examined by investigators? (2) What are the sanctions for investigators when refusing to call and examine a de charge witnesses? The research method used in this paper is a normative research method with a statutory and conceptual approach. The results show that the neglect of the a de charge witness examination has made the norms governing the examination of a de charge witnesses becomes less crucial, which should receive serious attention in investigations for the realization of a criminal justice that upholds the principle of fair trial.
调查人员也有义务为嫌疑人的利益服务,当他们要求提供一名证人时,根据他们的说法,这类证人可以帮助打破这些要素或解除他们的嫌疑,这种证人被称为a De Charge(无罪证人)。问题是如何评估、筛选和传唤临时证人。调查人员必须有明确和完整的理由来执行这项规定。基于这一问题,本研究的问题表述如下:(1)可以被侦查人员审查的非指控证人的标准是什么?(二)调查人员拒绝传唤、讯问指定证人的处罚是什么?本文采用的研究方法是一种具有法定法和概念法的规范性研究方法。结果表明,对代理证人审查的忽视使得代理证人审查的规范变得不那么重要,为了实现坚持公平审判原则的刑事司法,在侦查中应该引起重视。