KEPASTIAN HUKUM PUTUSAN PEMIDANAAN YANG TIDAK BERDASARKAN SURAT DAKWAAN JAKSA PENUNTUT UMUM

Galih Setyo Rangga, Sinda Eria Ayuni
{"title":"KEPASTIAN HUKUM PUTUSAN PEMIDANAAN YANG TIDAK BERDASARKAN SURAT DAKWAAN JAKSA PENUNTUT UMUM","authors":"Galih Setyo Rangga, Sinda Eria Ayuni","doi":"10.37303/magister.v13i2.68","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In criminal law enforcement, there is a problem with the judge made law which is unfair and irresponsible in deciding a case, thereby reducing public trust in the judiciary. Criminal judges in Indonesia make many legal breakthroughs in passing a criminal case decision that does not refer to the provisions of the legislation, in other words the judge carries out his own interpretation of a criminal act that is appropriate for the defendant based on the facts in the trial and sets his own article that fits with the facts of the trial that are seen, resulting in a decision that is not in accordance with the indictment of the public prosecutor. It can be seen that there has been a legal event where the judge has decided outside the prosecutor's indictment and this research needs to be followed up by linking the judge's decision that was handed down not based on the article indicted from the aspect of legal certainty. The type of research used in this research is doctrinal law research. The sentencing decision in a criminal case which is decided by a judge not based on the indictment of the Public Prosecutor can be considered invalid because it is contrary to the principles of criminal law. In the examination in court, the party who must prove the indictment to the defendant is the public prosecutor, not the judge. \nKeywords: Legal Certainty, Judge made law, Letter Demands, Public Prosecutor","PeriodicalId":441760,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Magister Hukum Perspektif","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Magister Hukum Perspektif","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37303/magister.v13i2.68","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

In criminal law enforcement, there is a problem with the judge made law which is unfair and irresponsible in deciding a case, thereby reducing public trust in the judiciary. Criminal judges in Indonesia make many legal breakthroughs in passing a criminal case decision that does not refer to the provisions of the legislation, in other words the judge carries out his own interpretation of a criminal act that is appropriate for the defendant based on the facts in the trial and sets his own article that fits with the facts of the trial that are seen, resulting in a decision that is not in accordance with the indictment of the public prosecutor. It can be seen that there has been a legal event where the judge has decided outside the prosecutor's indictment and this research needs to be followed up by linking the judge's decision that was handed down not based on the article indicted from the aspect of legal certainty. The type of research used in this research is doctrinal law research. The sentencing decision in a criminal case which is decided by a judge not based on the indictment of the Public Prosecutor can be considered invalid because it is contrary to the principles of criminal law. In the examination in court, the party who must prove the indictment to the defendant is the public prosecutor, not the judge. Keywords: Legal Certainty, Judge made law, Letter Demands, Public Prosecutor
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
陪审团对控方控方起诉书的判决的确定性
在刑事执法中,法官制定的法律存在判决不公、不负责任的问题,从而降低了公众对司法机构的信任。刑事法官在印尼使许多法律突破一个刑事案件的决定而不指立法的规定,换句话说法官执行自己的解释适用于被告的犯罪行为基于事实的审判和集自己的文章符合事实的试验观察,导致这一决定并不符合公共检察官的起诉。由此可见,已经出现了法官在检察官起诉之外做出判决的法律事件,需要从法律确定性的角度,将法官不以起诉条款为依据做出的判决联系起来。本研究使用的研究类型是理论法研究。在刑事案件中,如果法官不是根据检察官的起诉书作出判决,则可以认为判决无效,因为它违反了刑法的原则。在法庭审查中,必须向被告证明起诉书的一方是公诉人,而不是法官。关键词:法律确定性,法官制法,请求书,检察官
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
TRADISI “MEDHOT BENANG LAWE” DALAM UPACARA PERKAWINAN NGLANGKAHI DI DESA PATIHAN KECAMATAN WIDANG KABUPATEN PENERAPAN PEMBELIAN TANAH DALAM RANGKA PENGADAAN TANAH UNTUK BANDARA KEWENANGAN PENGELOLAAN HARTA KEKAYAAN ORANG DIBAWAH PENGAMPUAN OLEH BALAI HARTA PENINGGALAN SURABAYA KAJIAN HUKUM TERHADAP PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA MEREK PADA POLO BY RALP LAUREN (Studi putusan No 83/Pdt.Sus-HKI/Merek2022/PN Niaga Jkt.Pst) IMPLEMENTASI MODERASI BERAGAMA PADA MASYARAKAT DESA BALONGGARUT KECAMATAN KREMBUNG KABUPATEN SIDOARJO
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1