The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence

Punishment of the Kanjuruhan Commotion due to Negligence from the Perspective of Causality Theory (Case of Decision 13/Pid.B/2023/PN Sby jo 922/K/Pid/2023)

2024-02-25T09:41:50+07:00

The consequences of the Kanjuruhan incident during Indonesian football matches prompted the implementation of punitive measures, aiming to ensure the protection of fundamental rights. The incident, which resulted in dissatisfaction among fans, particularly the Aremania supporters, was triggered by their team's defeat. The conclusion of the match saw a surge of discontent, leading fans to descend onto the field to express their disappointment. In conducting this research, a doctrinal legal approach, specifically of the normative type, was employed. The methodology involved a literature study, encompassing legal principles, rules, regulations, doctrines, theories, and legal dictionaries that contribute to legal literacy. The research aimed to gain insights into the necessity, harmony, and intentionality of legal measures, employing a scientific approach through doctrinal laws. The normative legal methods used positive law, context, and literature as their specifications. The research approach incorporated positive law and a case study method, focusing on the Kanjuruhan commotions. The findings and discussions unveiled the court's decision in accordance with Decision 13/Pid.B/2023/PN Sby, which acquitted the defendant. Legal efforts were subsequently initiated by the public prosecutor (JPU) in case 922/K/Pid/2023 to overturn the previous decision. The Supreme Judge determined a violation of Article 359 in conjunction with Article 360 of Law Number 1/1946 concerning Criminal Law Regulations, citing negligence leading to death. The causal link in this case was established when security forces (police) deployed tear gas into the spectator stands in response to the anarchic behavior of the Aremania supporters who had descended onto the field.

Analysis of the Judge’s Decision Regarding the Blasphemy Case (Case of Decision 726/Pid.Sus/2023/PN Plg)

2024-02-23T17:35:43+07:00

This research delves into the intricate and significant landscape of religious blasphemy cases, a phenomenon on the rise in Indonesia. Beyond causing societal disturbances, these cases pose substantial challenges within the legal and judicial framework. The escalating number of such cases reflects a noteworthy expansion in the diversity of opinions and expressions within society. However, the lack of clarity in the legal boundaries surrounding religious blasphemy often leads to uncertainty in establishing guilt and determining appropriate punishment, despite existing regulation in the Information and Electronic Transactions Law. The influence of media and social media exacerbates the complexity of religious blasphemy cases. Coverage and discussions on online platforms play a pivotal role in shaping public opinion and influencing the trajectory of the judicial process. This impact extends beyond the national level, potentially sparking global ramifications. Concurrently, judicial independence faces scrutiny, as external pressures from various entities can sway judges' decisions. Consequently, this research seeks to provide a thorough understanding of these multifaceted aspects. An analysis of the judge's decision in the religious blasphemy case, as exemplified by Lina Mukherjee on social media, becomes crucial for dissecting the legal and social dynamics at play. This examination not only aims to comprehend the intricacies involved but also serves as a foundation for proposing recommendations to enhance the justice system. The ultimate goal is to achieve a balance in justice and safeguard human rights in the face of evolving challenges posed by religious blasphemy cases.

Immunity Rights of Experts Who Provide Statements in Trials (Study Decision No: 47/Pdt.G/LH/2018/PN Cbi)

2024-02-25T16:17:32+07:00

This paper investigates the critical issue of immunity rights for experts who provide statements in trials, with a specific focus on the analysis of Decision No: 47/Pdt.G/LH/2018/PN Cbi. Employing a normative research approach, the study adopts a comprehensive methodology, encompassing a case and statutory perspective alongside grammatical and systematic interpretation. The pivotal finding of the research centers on the rejection of a lawsuit by the Panel of Judges, attributing it to the absence of relative competence in the presented case. Notably, the decision contains a notable directive, proposing that "experts in the future should have the right not to be prosecuted criminally." This forward-looking perspective accentuates the significance of extending immunity rights to experts. The paper underscores the urgent need for recognizing and formalizing these rights within the legal framework, advocating for the incorporation of immunity provisions for experts in the Witness and Victim Protection Law. The research contributes to the broader discourse on legal reforms, highlighting the evolving landscape concerning the legal status and protection of experts involved in legal proceedings. In navigating these complex legal dynamics, this paper calls for a proactive approach from policymakers and legislators to address and safeguard the immunity rights of experts, ensuring a fair and conducive environment for their participation in legal processes.

The Judge’s Perspective on Material Unlawfulness in Cases of Illegal State House Control (Case of Decision Number 2002/Pid.B/2011/PN.Jkt.Pst)

2024-02-25T16:16:47+07:00

This study explores the legal issues arising from housing and settlements, where individuals may assume defendant status when occupying a house without ownership, a status valid only with the owner's approval. The enactment of Law Number 1 of 2011, which revokes Law Number 4 of 1992, prompts judges to ponder its implications, especially in relation to Article 1 paragraph (2) of Law Number 1 of 1946 concerning the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP). The judge's decision, linked to the unlawfulness of the case, raises significant concerns. This paper seeks to underscore the inaccuracies in the judge’s interpretation of Criminal Code Article 1 paragraph (2) and the disregard for material law in the decision-making process. The research findings unveil a disparity in perspectives between Law Number 4 of 1992 and Law Number 1 of 2011 concerning case handling, leading to the conclusion that the case fails to satisfy the elements of Criminal Code Article 1 paragraph (2). The judge's misinterpretation is rooted in prioritizing the principle of legality (Article 1 paragraph 1) while overlooking the violation of material law. Importantly, this research contributes a nuanced understanding of the legal landscape, shedding light on the implications of housing laws and their intersection with criminal statutes.

Unlawful Acts According to Civil Law and Criminal Law

2024-02-25T16:19:14+07:00

Land grabbing is not a new phenomenon and has occurred in Indonesia. The term "land grabbing" refers to the act of seizing rights or property arbitrarily, without adhering to laws and regulations, such as occupying land or houses that do not belong to the perpetrator. Unlawful land grabbing constitutes a legal violation and can be categorized as a criminal act. If the act is intentionally committed by someone who seizes the land of others, Article 167 of the Criminal Code (KUHPidana) may be applied. Meanwhile, the civil law aspects encompass Article 1365 and Article 1366, as in cases of land grabbing, there are parties who suffer losses and are entitled to compensation for the damages incurred.