司法视角下的土地掠夺刑事案件判决

Dhinda Ratri Putristira
{"title":"司法视角下的土地掠夺刑事案件判决","authors":"Dhinda Ratri Putristira","doi":"10.25041/plr.v4i1.2948","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In cases of land grabbing, the overlap between civil and criminal law has created pre-judicial problems. This has resulted in the discourse of justice among those who anticipate law enforcement through criminal proceedings to be insecure. In addition, the Criminal Procedure Code does not recognize decision NO. This article examines the decision of Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard (NO) in the final decision at the first level of the crime of land grabbing through the perspective of the value of justice. This article uses normative research using case-based, statutory, and conceptual methodologies. Data collection was carried out using literature review tools and interviews. Furthermore, qualitative data analysis was carried out. The findings of the study show that NO's decision in the final decision for the crime of land grabbing at the first level is intended to eliminate inconsistencies between criminal and civil judgments. Still, the Criminal Procedure Code does not recognize NO. Therefore, the NO decision cannot be given in a criminal case. If the indictment cannot be used to prosecute the defendant's actions, the decision can be an acquittal or a decision free from all lawsuits. Regarding the need for a civil decision regarding land ownership, it should be resolved in an interlocutory judgment. NO's verdict in the land grabbing case Number: 376.PID.B/2021/PN KOT does not fulfill the value of justice. Victims cannot get back the items they claim as their own, the public prosecutor cannot prove the accused's guilt, and the perpetrators do not know the exact status of the land. In addition, as a result of NO's decision, the case could not be retried (ne bis in idem), so justice and legal certainty were not achieved.","PeriodicalId":52575,"journal":{"name":"Pancasila and Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard (NO) Decision on the Criminal Case of Land Grabbing Perspective of Justice\",\"authors\":\"Dhinda Ratri Putristira\",\"doi\":\"10.25041/plr.v4i1.2948\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In cases of land grabbing, the overlap between civil and criminal law has created pre-judicial problems. This has resulted in the discourse of justice among those who anticipate law enforcement through criminal proceedings to be insecure. In addition, the Criminal Procedure Code does not recognize decision NO. This article examines the decision of Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard (NO) in the final decision at the first level of the crime of land grabbing through the perspective of the value of justice. This article uses normative research using case-based, statutory, and conceptual methodologies. Data collection was carried out using literature review tools and interviews. Furthermore, qualitative data analysis was carried out. The findings of the study show that NO's decision in the final decision for the crime of land grabbing at the first level is intended to eliminate inconsistencies between criminal and civil judgments. Still, the Criminal Procedure Code does not recognize NO. Therefore, the NO decision cannot be given in a criminal case. If the indictment cannot be used to prosecute the defendant's actions, the decision can be an acquittal or a decision free from all lawsuits. Regarding the need for a civil decision regarding land ownership, it should be resolved in an interlocutory judgment. NO's verdict in the land grabbing case Number: 376.PID.B/2021/PN KOT does not fulfill the value of justice. Victims cannot get back the items they claim as their own, the public prosecutor cannot prove the accused's guilt, and the perpetrators do not know the exact status of the land. In addition, as a result of NO's decision, the case could not be retried (ne bis in idem), so justice and legal certainty were not achieved.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52575,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pancasila and Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pancasila and Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25041/plr.v4i1.2948\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pancasila and Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25041/plr.v4i1.2948","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在土地掠夺案件中,民法和刑法之间的重叠造成了司法前的问题。这导致了那些预计通过刑事诉讼执法不安全的人对正义的讨论。此外,《刑事诉讼法》不承认第号决定。本文从司法价值的角度考察了Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard(NO)在土地掠夺罪一级终审判决中的决定。本文使用基于案例、法定和概念的方法进行规范性研究。使用文献综述工具和访谈进行数据收集。此外,还进行了定性数据分析。研究结果表明,NO在一级土地掠夺罪最终判决中的决定旨在消除刑事判决和民事判决之间的不一致。然而,《刑事诉讼法》不承认“否”。因此,在刑事案件中不能作出“否”决定。如果起诉书不能用来起诉被告的行为,则判决可以是无罪释放或不受任何诉讼的判决。关于是否需要就土地所有权作出民事裁决,应在中间判决中予以解决。NO在编号为376.PID.B/2021/PN-KOT的土地掠夺案中的判决不符合正义的价值。受害者无法取回他们声称属于自己的物品,公诉人无法证明被告有罪,犯罪者也不知道土地的确切状况。此外,由于NO的决定,该案无法重审(一罪不二审),因此没有实现公正和法律确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard (NO) Decision on the Criminal Case of Land Grabbing Perspective of Justice
In cases of land grabbing, the overlap between civil and criminal law has created pre-judicial problems. This has resulted in the discourse of justice among those who anticipate law enforcement through criminal proceedings to be insecure. In addition, the Criminal Procedure Code does not recognize decision NO. This article examines the decision of Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard (NO) in the final decision at the first level of the crime of land grabbing through the perspective of the value of justice. This article uses normative research using case-based, statutory, and conceptual methodologies. Data collection was carried out using literature review tools and interviews. Furthermore, qualitative data analysis was carried out. The findings of the study show that NO's decision in the final decision for the crime of land grabbing at the first level is intended to eliminate inconsistencies between criminal and civil judgments. Still, the Criminal Procedure Code does not recognize NO. Therefore, the NO decision cannot be given in a criminal case. If the indictment cannot be used to prosecute the defendant's actions, the decision can be an acquittal or a decision free from all lawsuits. Regarding the need for a civil decision regarding land ownership, it should be resolved in an interlocutory judgment. NO's verdict in the land grabbing case Number: 376.PID.B/2021/PN KOT does not fulfill the value of justice. Victims cannot get back the items they claim as their own, the public prosecutor cannot prove the accused's guilt, and the perpetrators do not know the exact status of the land. In addition, as a result of NO's decision, the case could not be retried (ne bis in idem), so justice and legal certainty were not achieved.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reflecting Pancasila in Environmental Crimes Enforcement: Diffusing Values to Indonesia’s Laws Re-evaluating the Legal and Institutional Complications Affecting the Protection of Women's Rights in Cameroon: The Need to Remedying the Odds Equity Crowdfunding: The Secondary Market’s Implementation and Legal Protection for Investors Using Technology-Based Crowdfunding Global Minimum Tax Implementation: Vietnam's Policy Recommendations Rethinking The Feasibility of Pancasila as a Scientific Paradigm
×
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