ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP URGENSITAS PENGADILAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI DI DAERAH DALAM MEWUJUDKAN PERADILAN YANG BERSIHDAN BERWIBAWA

Abstract

PenelitianinibertujuanuntukmengetahuisejauhmanaurgensiadanyaPengadilanTipikor di daerah. PenelitianinimengunakanmetodeKualitatifjenispendekatanyuridissosiologisdanvaliditas data menggunakantekniktrianggulasi. HasilPenelitianmenunjukanbahwapenegakanhukum di PengadilanTipikor Semarang daritahun 2011-2013 mengalamipeningkatan, makakinerjaPengadilanTipikor Semarang semakinmeningkatdalammenanganiperkaradanseriusdalampenegakanhukumterhadapkasuskorupsi. Adanyadisparitaspenjatuhanhukumandalamkasus yang samaterhadappenyalahgunaan APBD Sragenditanganimajelis hakim yang tidakberintegritasdantidakbermoral. UrgensiadanyaPengadilanTipikor, perkarakorupsi di Jawa Tengah di tahun 2012 dan 2013 mengalamipeningkatan, tetapidalamputusan yang dijatuhkanolehmajelis hakim mengalamipeningkatan yang cukupbaik, setelahadanyaPengadilanTipikor Semarang. Putusanmajelis hakim yang diberikankepadaterdakwakasuskorupsi, rata-rata jumlahputusanselamatahun 2011-2013 masihringan, yaituantara 0-4 tahunbahkanada yang diputusbebas, inimembuktikanbahwapengadilantipikormasihlemahdankurangmaksimaldalammenjatuhkanhukumankepadaterdakwakasuskorupsi. Disparitaspenjatuhanhukumanbagiterdakwakasuskorupsitidakbisadihindarkandanpastidipakaiolehmajelis hakim pengadilantipikor Semarang karena hakim melihatkasus yang ditangani, sikapterdakwaselamapersidangandanfakta-fakta yang ada di dalampersidangandansetiapterdakwapastiberbeda, itu yang menyebabkanterjadinyadisparitaspenjatuhanhukumanoleh hakim. UrgensiadanyaPengadilanTipikor di daerahkhususnya di Semarang didasariatasketidakpuasanmasyarakatdalampenegakanhukumterhadapkasuskorupsi. Pendiriantersebutmempunyaimaknadalammewujudkanpemerintahan yang bersihdanbebasdarikorupsi, kolusidannepotisme.

This study aims to determine the extent to which the absence of urgency in the Corruption Court. This study uses qualitative method juridical sociological kinds and validity of the data using triangulation techniques. Research shows that law enforcement in Semarang Corruption Court from the year 2011-2013 has increased, the performance of Semarang Corruption Court increasingly serious in handling the case and in law enforcement against corruption. Sentencing disparities in cases similar to the misuse of budget Sragen judges are not handled with integrity and immoral. Urgency presence Corruption Court, cases of corruption in Central Java in 2012 and 2013 has increased, but in a decision handed down by a panel of judges has increased quite good, after the Semarang Corruption Court. Decisions of the judges to be given to the accused in corruption cases, the average number of ruling over the years 2011-2013 are still lightweight, which is between 0-4 years old and some even acquitted, the court proves that corruption is still weak and less than the maximum in the sentencing defendant cases of corruption. Disparity in sentencing for convicted corruption can’t be avoided and certainly used by the Semarang Corruption Court judges because judges see cases handled, the attitude of the defendant during the trial and the facts in the trial and every defendant is different, that's what causes the disparity sentencing by the judge. Corruption Court in the absence of urgency, especially in the area of Semarang is based on the dissatisfaction of society in the enforcement of the law against corruption. The establishment has the meaning in creating a clean government and free from corruption, collusion and nepotism.