The Sculling Crime in Work Relationship over Plantation Service, Sago Drugging Case Study

Nelly Dharma, Markoni Markoni, Wasis Susetio

Abstract


The judicial process will be ends with a final decision (verdict). Here, the imposition or release of criminal sanctions (punishment), in the judgment has been considered over verdict. Before arriving at this stage, there are steps that must be carried out beforehand, namely the stage of proof in imposing a crime against the defendant. In imposing a crime, the judge must have analyse based on two valid evidence with the two pieces of evidence also judge is convinced that the criminal act charged has actually occurred and it was the defendant who committed it. This is regulated in Article 183 KUHAP. Thus, the purpose of this study to examine and analyse the authority of the prosecutor over judges panel in imposing a sentence on the defendant. In this study, the proposed method to examine and analyse the strength of the items or evidence were obtained through the expert witnesses and field witnesses. Here, we analyse empirical juridical legal studies are examines the applicable legal provisions and a society reality condition. In this study, the processing data was used qualitative methods with draws conclusions using legal logic. The result shows the judges' considerations and decisions are sometimes different from the demands of the public prosecutor. In addition, the evidence and considerations used by the panel of judges also differ from the evidence received from expert witnesses, field witnesses, letters and instructions from investigators. However, the judges have a strength evidence to determine authority by obtain relationship.

Keywords


Authority, Attorney, Panel of Judges, Investigation, The Crime of Embezzlement.

Full Text:

PDF

References


. Andi Hamzah. (1992). Criminal Code, p. 144. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Mahrus Ali. (2011). Basics of Criminal Law, p. 287. Jakarta: PT. Sinar Grafika.

Cholid Narbuko and Abu Achmadi. (2003). Research Methodology, p. 1. Jakarta: PT. Bumi Aksara.

Soerjono Soekanto. (2012). Introduction to Legal Research, p. 5. Jakarta: University of Indonesia Press.

Kartini Kartono in Marzuki. Research Methodology. h. 55. Yogyakarta: UII Press, t.t.

Bambang Waluyo. Legal Research. p. 16.

Suharsimi Arikunto. (2002). Research Procedure A Practice Approach, p. 126. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Evi Hartanti. (2009). Second Edition of Corruption Crime. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

Edy O.S Hiariej. Op. Cit, p. 92.

Moeljatno. (2013). Principles of Criminal Law, Revised Ed p. 33. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Tongat. (2015). Material Criminal Law, p. 51. Malang: UMM Press.

Adami Chazawi. (2016). Crimes Against Property, 2nd ed, cet. Malang: Media Nusa Creative.

Eddy O.S Hiarej. Op. Cit, p. 114.

Adami Chazawi. Op. Cit, p. 82.

A. Hamid S. Attamimi. (2007). Legislation, Types, Functions, and Contents, Hlm. 17. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.

Oachim Friedrich. (2004). Historical Perspective Philosophy of Law, p. 239. Bandung: Nuansa and Nusamedia.

Mochtar Kusumaatmadja and B. Arief Sidharta. (2000). Introduction to Legal Studies, A First Introduction to the Scope of Applicability of Law, p. 4. Bandung : Alumni.

Mohamad Faiz. (2009). John Rawls Theory of Justice, p. 135. Journal of the Constitution, Volue 6 Number 1 (April).

Fauzan and Heru Prasetyo. (2006). Theory of Justice, p. 56. Yogyakarta: Student Library.

Djoko Prakoso. (1988). Tools of Evidence and the Power of Evidence in the Criminal Process, Pg. 14. Jakarta: LIBERTY.

DEPDIKBUD. (1995). Indonesian Dictionary, P.151. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.

Danil, Elwi. (2011). Corruption Crime and its eradication, Pg. 45. Jakarta: PT. Rajagrafindo Persada.

R Supomo. (2002). Study on Corruption Crime Evidence, p. 62- 63. Yogyakarta: UII Press.

Bambang Waluyo. (2002). Legal Research in Practice, p. 15. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

Adami Chazawi. (2010). Criminal Law Lessons 1 Edition 1, p. 71. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.

Article 184 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Article 185 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Taufiqul, Hulam. (2002). Reactualization of DNA Test Evidence, p. 87. Yogyakarta : UII Press.

M. Yahya Harahap. p. 297.

Karim, Nasution. (2002). Evidence Against Criminal Procedure Code, Pg. 45. Jakarta : Sinar Grafika.

Andi, Hamzah. Op.Cit, Hlm. 256.

Andi Hamzah. (2005). Indonesian Criminal Procedure Law, p. 272. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

H. Setiyono. (2009). Evidence in Criminal Law, Pg. 54. Raja Grafindo.

D, Simon. (2009). Statement of the Perpetrator in the Court Session, p. 273. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.

Law No. 16 of 2004. Concerning the Republic of Indonesia Attorney General's Office, p. 7.

Adami Chazawi. (2010). Criminal Law Lessons 1 Edition 1, p. 71. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.

Evi Hartanti. (2009). Second Edition of Corruption Crime, p. 5. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

Tongat. (2006). Materiil Criminal Law, p. 57. Malang: UMM Press.

Adami Chazawi. (2006). Crimes Against Property, p. 70. Jakarta: Bayu Media.

P.A.F. Lamintang. (2009). Crimes Against Assets, p. 133. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

Cholid Narbuko and Abu Achmadi. (2003). Research Methodology, p. 1. Jakarta: PT. Bumi Aksara.

Soerjono Soekanto. (2012). Introduction to Legal Research, p. 5. (Jakarta: University of Indonesia Press, ,

Kartini Kartono in Marzuki. Research Methodology, h. 55. Yogyakarta: UII Press, t.t.

Suharsimi Arikunto. (2002). Research Procedure A Practice Approach, p. 126. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Bambang Waluyo. (2002). Legal Research in Practice, p. 15 Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

Bambang Waluyo. Legal Research, p. 16.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.


Supported by :







Indexed by :