Punishment of the Kanjuruhan Commotion due to Negligence from the Perspective of Causality Theory

Punishment results in Kanjuruhan in Indonesian football matches, to guarantee the protection of fundamental rights. The Kanjuruhan incident had a detrimental impact, causing fans' dissatisfaction (Aremania) at the defeat. The end of the match caused the crowd to come down the field, to express their disappointment. Tools in research use doctrinal law which is specifically of the normative type. This research uses literature study by collecting legal principles, legal rules, regulations, doctrine, theories, legal dictionaries which are based on legal literacy. The achievement results are to understand necessity, harmony and intentionality. How to work scientifically with research activities, using doctrinal laws. Specification of normative legal methods using positive law, context and literature. The research approach uses laws (positive law) and a case approach (Kanjuruhan commotions). The results and discussions revealed the verdict, in accordance with decision 13/Pid.B/2023/PN Sby deciding that the defendant was acquitted. Legal efforts were taken by the public prosecutor (JPU) in case 922/K/Pid/2023, to cancel the previous decision. The Supreme Judge assessed that a violation of Article 359 in conjunction with Article 360 of Law Number 1/1946 concerning Criminal Law Regulations had occurred, causing negligence resulting in death. The causality of this case was when security forces (police) fired tear gas into the spectator stands, due to the behavior of anarchist (Aremania) supporters who came down the field.


Introduction
All Indonesian law is part of criminal law, with formal and material legal boundaries.The presence of criminal law is a general policy line as a national foundation and achievement.The national goal is a means of protecting society as a result of criminal acts, so that reparation and protection efforts are fulfilled.Defense of norms recognized in law, to impose suffering on those who violate the rules.The specific aim relates to legal protection through criminal sanctions, this threat is sharper than other laws. 1 Providing legal sanctions to achieve fairness, benefits and certainty. 2iminal law is the ultimate remedy (ultimum remedium), in order to protect the fundamental rights of victims but impose sanctions on the universal rights of perpetrators.Evil acts require efforts to prove, realizing criminal responsibility.This effort understands that criminal sanctions are a form of repressive action, through a criminal justice system process.
Legal theory explains that law is stable, dynamic and not rigid.Statements contain elements of certainty and predictability, so they must be stable and follow the dynamics of the development of human life.Legal theory is a lesson about the elements of legal law, which are found in the legal system. 3e development of theory can look at legal aspects in the form of substance (according to positive law, future law, law that lives in society, and legal comparisons), structure (facilities and infrastructure in the organization of legal institutions), and culture (the response from society regarding the rules and structure).These three elements are elements of the legal system, so the area for developing theories about law can study one of them. 4oup sports with enthusiastic supporters sometimes cause commotions resulting in injuries and deaths.Football has become a physical activity that people are interested in watching live.The league 1 match will be held on October 1 2022, between Arema and Persebaya.Unsatisfactory results caused commotions among the audience.Accidental murder is The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence 4 (2) (2023) 123-144 125 Available online at https://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/digestmurder that occurs due to a mistake that results in loss of life, injury, loss of limbs, or loss of function of limbs. 5e commotions had a detrimental impact on the development of Indonesian football, both materially and psychologically.Several previous studies discussed forms of accountability in the Kanjuruhan commotions.The current research aims to review the Kanjuruhan commotions in terms of causality theory.This commotion revealed the causal factors of crime which resulted in deaths, minor injuries and serious injuries.A person's death is declared when the heart stops beating or the brain stem dies (stops breathing).Medical science uses the nervous, respiratory and cardiovascular systems (heart and blood vessels).If one of them is disturbed, the other functions will be incompatible.The continuation of this condition in humans will be considered dead.The sudden death of a person requires further research.The factors in a person's death need to be found, whether physical action or other causes.
The plural action dimension of death requires evidence as a form of causal relationship.The presence of evidence in judicial institutions is not strong enough to determine the death of an individual (the total submission of evidence can answer death).Other disciplinary needs to prove a series of facts in drawing conclusions.
The scientific discipline of analyzing the fact of a person's death requires connecting cause and effect (teaching of causality).The teaching of causality acts as a filter on the relevance of actions to review the causal verband (to what extent) in obtaining material truth.The Kanjur commotions as an exposure of cases of individual deaths, a concrete form of the usefulness of the teaching of causality in studying facts.
The Kanjuruhan incident is a plural action and it is not easy to answer the facts of mass death.Dissolving case number 13/Pid.B/2023/PN Sby as responsibility for death requires a close relationship between one cause and the next.An appeal was made in case number 922/K/Pid/2023, to cancel the previous decision.Judges in carrying out their main duties (main tasks) need the teaching of causality, so that decisions will reach the truth.The importance of the teaching of causality in achieving causal verband, to convince judges.
Positive law does not implicitly regulate the doctrine of causality, so judges in carrying out their role need a doctrine to interpret causal verband.The use of the doctrine or teaching of causality is to show who is responsible for the crime (perpetrator).The causal relationship between actions and consequences in criminal acts does not explicitly regulate the importance of this element in the Indonesian Criminal Code.6

Method
The method of scientific work with research activities, followed by the nature and nature of scientific objects is research methods.The tools used for research purposes are not rigid and elastic, so their use varies depending on the object of the scientific research discipline.7 Doctrinal legal research lies in the normative and sociological/empirical types, both studies differ in the object of research.Reviewing the value system as a conceptual system and positive law is the aim of normative legal research.
The method used is normative research, which falls into the doctrinal category.Normative research specifications discuss the study of legal principles, legal systematics, legal harmony, legal history, and comparison.This research specification uses a Law Approach and a Case Approach. 8egulatory approach to Law Number 1/1946 (KUHP) and National Police Chief Regulations.The case approach examines the legal reasons used by judges in their decisions to reach the ratio decidendi.
Preparation is the initial stage of research, by collecting legal norms, legal rules, legal regulations, doctrine, legal theory, encyclopedias, legal dictionaries, legal literacy.The ultimate goal is to produce arguments, theories, or concepts in solving problems.Achievement is about necessity, conformity and error.9 Legal science has a normative character, so every model of legal research must have a normative character (doctrinal or non-doctrinal research).Legal research maintains a normative distinction from social research.Providing the basics of knowledge regarding research, conceptually has general elements (generalization of scientific research). 10inking instruments to draw conclusions from propositions that are accepted as scientifically true.Ways (methods) using the rules of scientific knowledge (special) and knowledge (general).Logic functions as a way (method) to analyze the truth or accuracy of thoughts (reasoning).The Available online at https://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/digestprocess of creating a concept and then making a statement, resulting in reasoning.
Doctrinal research is equated with prescriptive qualitative, discussing law as a study of ideal values in systems, conceptual views of law, and positive law.Achievement of results to provide suggestions (recommendations) regarding development efforts and the formation of law from a broad perspective (law as a definition of an ideal value system, a good norm system, a scientific conception system, systematic law in positive law, legal balance both horizontally (parallel) and vertically (top to bottom). 11

Result and Discussions
A criminal act is an act of violating the law that is carried out intentionally or unintentionally, so that it can be accounted for in accordance with positive law.The formulation of an offense in positive law (Strafbaarfeit), as a concrete incident in a crime.Offense is defined as an action that is subject to a crime, while Strafbaarfeit is a human act that is threatened with a crime. 12iminal law in Indonesia gives rise to monistic and dualistic tendencies.The monistic school views the terms of punishment as a combination of a prohibited act (criminal act) and a mistake (criminal responsibility).The view of crime as fulfilling the formulation of an offense, breaking the law, and a mistake.Strafbaarfeit states that the perpetrator (legal subject) is subject to punishment. 13e second (dualistic) flow separates criminal acts and mistakes.Prohibited acts formulated by positive law are against the law without justification.Moeljatno views Strafbaarfeit as a legal prohibition followed by threats to violators. 14

A. Causality Theory
Humans interact with each other (social creatures) which results in positive or negative interactions.The resulting negative interactions will form problems, so it is necessary to determine cause and effect.Difficulties will be experienced if many causal chains are found.The relationship between the occurrence of a series of events and one factor giving rise to another factor is the definition of Causality.The formulation of causality is a complex matter in formulating causes (series of interactions) and effects (consequences of causes).The Law of Causality is divided into 2 (two) definitions, law (the ethical basis for producing individual justice) while causality (the beginning of the cause).
In terms of terminology, causality has the following definition: 1) The relationship resulting from human actions as a series of causes for prohibited actions; 2) The significance of the cause of an effect, so that it becomes a series of causalities; 3) Causality links between symptoms.The first event is a symptom, then determines the result (consequence of action).The causal relationship has power over the initial and subsequent causes, first as a trigger (trigger) of further action which takes concrete form as a result of the initial cause.The initial and subsequent essences have a strong relationship but not all of them can be reduced to the teaching of causality.15 Positive law does not limit the teachings of causality, the consequences of prohibited actions can be monitored through cause-effect relationships (causality).Forbidden acts that are the cause of the connection between several events, resulting in losses (injury or death) can be determined by liability using the doctrine of causality.Criminal liability has a psychological causal relationship with prohibited acts. 16iminal understanding uses the teachings of Causality for determining actions regarding a sequence that looks at the causes of illicit consequences.The focus of criminal law jurists on the meaning of causality is to answer who is responsible for the consequences.Causality determines the actual actions caused by the perpetrator to seek the law of prohibited actions in order to achieve justice (accountability). 17The application of the theory of causality due to the judge's error will result in an unfair decision. 18nderstanding causality in Indonesian criminal law, through positive legal offenses. 19The doctrine of causality is useful in material criminal acts, after producing certain prohibited consequences.The assessment of material criminal acts is about the final result of the prohibited consequences, not the act.A criminal act is a unity between actions and consequences, based on material offenses.The consequences of a series of actions, if there are no prohibited consequences, are not a criminal act.
The theory of causality consists of 4 theories, as follow: 1. Equivalence Theory (Conditio Sine Qua Non) This theory was developed by Von Buri, who is known as absolute theory.This theory's statement regarding all conditions is a cause, to bring about an effect.The conditions present have the same value as the cause of the crime.Testing tools to determine the sequence of events so that they are equivalent for all causes of crime.All factors are of the same nature which causes all conditions to contribute to the effect, so they cannot be removed from the chain of causes.Theoretical causality relationships still require the relationship of error factors.Consideration of error must look at the existence of actus reus and mens rea, especially in cases where negligence is more dominant than action. 20Causality does not only use the judge's logic, but the logic of reason in order to achieve objective literacy (knowledge) in plural actions.One action after another creates a relationship of interrelated events 2. Generalist Theory Breadth determines liability in previous theories, presenting causal limitations.The emergence of this theory limits itself between cause and effect, to produce forbidden consequences.Consequences arise by calculating feasibility in abstracto.The generalist theory group is proposed by J. Von Kreis (subjective adequate theory).Actions with known or foreseeable consequences, as a cause in subjective factors.Subjective factors (the suspect's inner attitude) are crucial in determining the clause, before the action occurs.Awareness of actions gives rise to consequences and feasibility based on general human experience, as an adequate (strongest cause).
The balance of actions between causes that give rise to consequences in the form of actions that can be calculated appropriately to produce consequences, so that the perpetrator knows that what he does will cause prohibited consequences and is threatened with sanctions by positive law.The possibility of a prohibited consequence arising from an action has been predicted (predicted) so this theory is called subjective forecasting.
The adequate objective theory developed by Rumelin states that determining objectives is based on the circumstances following the consequences.The action becomes the objective cause of the prohibition that is publicly known.Attention to post factum (after the event) factors and their consequences, which can be reasonably predicted.This theory does not look at the inner attitude of the perpetrator, but objective factors after the action can be thought of by common sense will give rise to forbidden consequences.
According to Simons, there is a combined theory (subjective and objective), causality based on knowledge of the victim's condition by the perpetrator and the general public.The condition for a cause as a general action is in accordance with experience, thus allowing predictions of the presence of effects.Opinions regarding objective and subjective provisions, expressed by Van Bemmelen and Van Hattum regarding the causality of the mind for mistakes.

Individualist Theory
This theory views causes in concreato, involving specific matters based on individual views.The first adherent, Brickmayer, views all conditions as having to choose the main thing as a result.Actions that have a big impact, resulting in consequences.Von Bori's series of factors accepts all as causes, but looks for the greatest cause of influence.The second adherent, Karl Binding, all conditions present consequences (the same as Von Buri's theory).Actions that are assumed to be the cause, there is a change in the balance of negative factors (resistance) and positive factors (advantages to negative conditions).The main cause is considered as the final condition so as to eliminate the balance, then the positive conditions (requirements for causing effects) exceed the negative conditions (resisting the effects from arising).
The third believer, Kohler, conditions based on the nature of causing consequences (all conditions are important).This variation of teaching determines what is a qualitative influence, while Birckmayer mentions a quantitative influence.The difficulty of this teaching concerns equality of values as a condition.The fourth believer, Ortamann, states that cause is the end of conditions, there is an imbalance between positive and negative, so the determination is positive.This teaching is difficult to implement, there is the possibility of individuals being punished but not punished.
All factors that are considered as causes must take one strongest cause.Factors that are used as causes that have an influence on the consequences (delict).The cause (causa) has the strongest dominance as a factor in the existence of an effect, then other factors are used as The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence 4 (2) (2023) 123-144 131 Available online at https://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/digestconditions rather than causes.Requiring consideration in criminal liability for a series of events, choosing legal actions that threaten interests directly, it is necessary to set limits on the value of the causes of the consequences.

Relevance Theory
The adherents of this theory are Langenmeijer and Mezger, who distinguish between causes and conditions.This theory is determined from the formulation of regulations that contain offenses (which conditions are imagined to have prohibited consequences). 21Causality in regulations and containing principles is the basis for arising from the need to choose the appropriate thing.The meaning of this theory is to select the relevant cause from all the causes presented.This relevance is in accordance with the legislative (regulatory maker) intent as a cause.
The difference between the two previous theories, generalization and individualization, is the formulation of whether the actions that have been carried out are the cause of the forbidden consequences.Therefore, it is relevant to want to know whether the offense that has been formulated as a cause was envisioned when the regulations were made (legislative).This view is based on von Buri's teachings regarding causality in positive (written) regulations and provisions containing principles that exist in the data (located outside causality, by selecting one or several existing prohibited causes).

B. Understanding Negligence as a Category of Guidance Error
The element of a criminal act that violates the law (violating the formula of the offense) must look at the error factor.A person's crime is committed if it violates the law and can be accounted for.Consideration of criminal activity, errors and evidence form the basis of the judge's confidence in deciding the case (court decision).
The monodualistic school understands that to make a crime, it means paying attention to criminal acts and accountability.First, the elements of a criminal act are fulfilled if it violates the law, the formulation of the offense, and the loss of justification.Second, the element of criminal responsibility considers the factors of ability to be responsible, Dolus/Culpa, and loss of forgiveness.Monodualistic punishment aims to protect society and individuals (perpetrator). 22Mistake (schlud) is a determining factor in punishment, to punish or eliminate.The punishment that will be decided requires consideration of whether it is serious or light.The meaning of "schlud" is an oversight or culpa which refers to a mistake.In the theory of criminal responsibility, there must be an element of error (there is no crime without error).The definition of error means intentional (dolus), negligent (culpa) and accountable. 23e form of error is in the form of negligence or deliberate, which differentiates between the mental attitude of wanting (dolus) and carelessness (culpa).Punishment is not about people's bad attitudes, but criminal activity occurs.Forbidden acts result in losses, so the responsibility lies with the perpetrator.
Criminal means responsibility in several languages, namely torekenbaarheid (Dutch) and criminal liability or criminal responsibility (English).Enforcing punishment is a legislative (regulatory maker) goal for violators, resulting in prohibited consequences.Criminal liability concerns transferring punishment according to written law (registered criminal acts) to the perpetrator.
The legal rules for imposing criminal responsibility will occur if the perpetrator meets the legal criteria for imposing a sentence.The legislative body (creator) forms regulations to regulate accountability efforts for violators along with the sanctions (punishments) given.Criminal responsibility is applied to perpetrators who commit prohibited acts, with the threat of criminal punishment accompanied by absolute guilt.It is impossible for individuals to be given sanctions or responsibility if they do not carry out the prohibition. 24countability must pay attention to factors that are capable of distinguishing prohibited actions (reason) or according to the rules and knowing one's intentions regarding actions (feelings).If you do not have the ability to take responsibility, then the punishment will be lost.Forbidden acts caused by being present, due to inadvertence (negligence) due to obligations.Community losses are caused by obligations not being carried out according to procedures.The categories of responsibility are divided into pleger (act), doen pleger (commander), Medepleger (participate), and Uitlokker (advise) as legal subjects.

"(1) Every person who through his fault (culpa) causes serious injury to another person, the maximum prison sentence is 5 (five) years or the maximum imprisonment is 1 (one) year." "(2) Every person through his fault (culpa) causes injury to another person, resulting in illness or hindering his duties (work), the maximum imprisonment is 9 months or 6 months imprisonment or a fine of four thousand five hundred rupiah"
Moeljatno defines negligence on purpose (dolus) and coincidence, which considers negligence on purpose.Culpa offenses as a whole (quasideliet) as a reduction in crime.Negligence has 2 (two) types, namely the offense of negligence which has prohibited consequences and does not have prohibited consequences.The difference is the criminal threat in cases of carelessness.Negligent acts produce prohibited consequences, which are punishable by crime. 26rgetfulness is not defined in positive regulation, but is explained through memory van toelichting (Mvt).The government's response memory (MvA) states that anyone who commits an evil act intentionally has the ability (intentionally).Meanwhile, regarding who accidentally (culpa) uses his evil abilities.
The request for individual criminal responsibility looks at whether the individual has been criminally removed.The criminal (punishment) is responsible for the perpetrator in the form of fulfilling the elements of the criminal act and the error.Placing the determining factors of criminal responsibility does not only look at it as a mental element. 27A statement regarding the elements of a person's fault is a crucial aspect of criminal responsibility.Indonesia has written regulations which are presented in the form of codification in the form of the Criminal Code.The development of the Dutch colonial era (colonizers) provided codified criminal regulations in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code (Criminal Law), in reality there are still many uncodified written regulations (bookkeeping) in the form of laws. 29is case has presented a criminal act, even though tear gas was fired as a warning to the authorities, excessive use can cause harm.Security officers who do not use the principle of caution (negligence) in carrying out their duties can cause deaths.

C. Probative Cases from the Perspective of Causality Theory
Indonesia has spectators who are interested in sports (soccer), history records starting from China during the Han dynasty.Based on the Nielsen "World Football Report 2022" survey, football is a sport that is interested in 40% of the world's population.The Asian region in the databox survey section found Vietnam ranked first with 75% while Indonesia was ranked third with a percentage of 69%.The Asian country with the highest interest in this field, even though it has not yet entered the world cup final.
Indonesian people view football as not just a sport, but foster a sense of equality.The presence of groups and identities with the same enthusiasm to support the matches of your favorite team fosters fanaticism.Individual behavior that has the characteristic of achieving the main goal without paying attention (ignoring) the negative impacts that arise.Forms of fanaticism in the field of soccer can be seen, the presence of supporters trying to watch the team's match.The presence of supporters can add to the spirit of the match, but forms of expression of love give rise to verbal aggressive actions. 30major tragedy occurred on October 1 2022, shaking the world of Indonesian football.History records that there has been a major disaster, due to anarchism supporters in the Asian region.The Kanjuruhan commotion was ranked second as the event with the most fatalities.Previously, a similar incident had occurred in Peru, namely the Estadio Nacional.
The Kanjuruhan tragedy is clear evidence that people are not thinking intelligently, the dark events of football's past at the Peruvian National Available online at https://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/digestEstadio are repeating themselves. 31The incident began when a goal scored by a Peruvian player was ruled out by the referee.This incident caused emotions among the supporters, two people entered the field and tried to hit the referee.The police attacked supporters.This behavior provokes other people's anger, so that commotions are inevitable.Throwing items onto the field and trying to get down the field was carried out by other supporters, feeling the same as chauvinism (loving the country too much) in this case the team's pride when competing.The chaos got out of control, at the initiative of the police firing tear gas.The shooting of tear gas caused other supporters to panic and were trampled during their efforts to save themselves. 32e beginning of the commotion was the defeat of Persebaya's match with Arema, causing anarchic behavior among the supporters.The disappointment of the Aremania (Arema) support team took repressive action to express anger.Anarchic behavior is carried out by going down the field to attack opposing players through violence.Security forces tried to contain the chaos, but the situation was getting out of control.Repressive measures were given as the main effort by the security forces by firing tear gas.The shooting point was in the stands and field which became the center of the chaos.
Legal action at the Surabaya District Court (PN) with registration 13/Pid.B/2023/PN Sby, acquitted the defendant.The judge has the authority to decide that he has not been legally proven and is guilty of committing a crime, so that the Surabaya District Court Decision Number 13/Pid.B/2023/PN Sby acquits all charges.The judge assessed that the Defendant was proven to have ordered members to fire tear gas into the middle of the field to break up the chaos, but the direction of the shot was carried by the wind so that it blew into the south stand.
The community is trying to get involved in this case by investigating it thoroughly, in this case finding out who is responsible.This study requires a series of events, to find out the reasons why prohibited acts occur, so that we can find out who is responsible (perpetrator).The Kanjuruhan tragedy requires an analysis of causality theory, to find a bright spot in the case.
Remmelink stated the understanding of causality in the Indonesian criminal regulations (KUHP), that the doctrine of relevance is close to being the basis for cause and effect.A different opinion, expressed by Wirjono Prodjodikoro, stated that law enforcement officers (prosecutors and judges) were given the freedom to determine the use of causality theory which they deemed appropriate to their thinking. 33Punishers need to know who can be appointed to be responsible through the theory of causality.This theory is related to the principle of legality, where written law must exist before an action occurs.The application of the principle of legality includes lex scripta, lex certa, written law and clear rules so that the application of the principle of legality to old criminal law does not justify just being based on customary law. 34sualties in the Kanjuruhan incident killed 135 people from security forces and supporters.The protection provided cannot guarantee safety, so the Kanjuruhan tragedy is proof of the failure of security efforts.The article of the criminal charge states explicitly "Criminal acts that result in death or injury due to negligence", so the formulation of a material offense resulting from negligence (negligence), law enforcement officials can understand as a material criminal act.
Indonesian criminal regulations implicitly state the doctrine of criminal acts that are qualified by their consequences in the Kanjuruhan case.The Kanjuruhan commotions resulted in prohibited acts (criminal acts) which were qualified as consequences (death, serious injury and minor injury).Penalty article 359 in conjunction with Article 360 of Law No. 1/1946 (KUHP), according to individualist teachings states that to determine the cause, choose one factor.The suspicion of the strongest factor relates to being able to predict the consequences, in the Kanjuruhan case, when they fired tear gas at the audience, the police officers already suspected that there would be a prohibited consequence.The use of tear gas is not in accordance with procedures and ignores precautionary guidelines, resulting in consequences that require responsibility.
The judge gives an acquittal to the defendant, if during the trial he is not legally proven guilty in accordance with Article 191 paragraph 1 (KUHAP).Legal remedies against an acquittal (free) decision cannot be appealed or PK (review) in accordance with Article 67 in conjunction with 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code in conjunction with Constitutional Court decision 114/PUU-X/2012. 35e legal remedy for cassation at the final level is carried out by the competent authority of the Supreme Court.A cassation request cannot be granted based on the Supreme Court's decision, meaning that the cassation decision cannot be appealed again.Cassation means cancellation (a final decision that is not in accordance with the law can be cancelled).The Apart from that, errors occurred in the construction of the building and the caretaker's negligence in closing the emergency door, making the evacuation process difficult.The stairs in the stadium were quite steep, so it was difficult to escape when tear gas was fired towards the stands.
Violations of points in PSSI 2021 procedures have occurred, considering the number of victims killed by tear gas when officers tried to control the crowd.The use of tear gas was demonstrated during mass gatherings in the stands.The security forces have violated Article 19 of the 2021 PSSI security and safety rules regarding the use of sharp weapons or crowd dispersing tools when competing.
Security forces refuted the opinion and fired tear gas at the audience.However, it was very confusing if tear gas was not fired into the stands, because the audience experienced shortness of breath and red eyes.The commotions occurred not when supporters came down the field, but when security forces started firing tear gas. 37

Conclusion
The Kanjuruhan commotion resulted in the death of 135 people, at the causality of the Kanjuruhan commotions was caused by excessive firing of tear gas towards the stands which did not comply with procedures, then access to the stadium doors which were locked so that spectators rushed out to save themselves.Resulting in shortness of breath, trampling, injuries and death.Decision 13/Pid.B/2023/PN Sby stated that there was no unlawful act, the judge in his ruling stated that tear gas was fired towards the chaos, namely the middle of the field, but the wind caused the gas to move towards the stands.Legal action in the form of an appeal was carried out, resulting in the Supreme Court decision 922/K/Pid/2023 strengthening the prosecutor's indictment so that he was found guilty of shooting tear gas at the audience, because his negligence resulted in death.The punishment to punish the perpetrator is in the form of imprisonment for 2 (two) years.