Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2019 - 2024
0
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Yudisial
Melani Melani
Fakultas Hukum Universitas Pasundan Jl. Lengkong Besar No. 68 Kota Bandung
Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
“UNDUE PROCESS OF LAW” DALAM PERKARA PIDANA PERJUDIAN DENGAN TERDAKWA ANAK Melani Melani
Jurnal Yudisial Vol 4, No 3 (2011): SIMULACRA KEADILAN
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v4i3.186

Abstract

ABSTRACTThis article analyzes a decision of Bandung District Court. In this case, the Defendant (IR) was convicted of gambling with his friends (adults) in a public transportation with bets ranging from one to two thousand rupiahs. In examining the case, judges did not perform the procedure set out in the Juvenile Court Act (JCA), especially Articles 55, 57, and 58 Paragraph (2). From the beginning of the trial and during trial, IR was not accompanied by his parents, Legal Counsel, and Supervising Community. Prior to pronounce the verdict, the judge did not provide the opportunity for parents to express all the things that are beneficial to IR. This also disregards JCA, Article 59 Paragraph (1). All of these showed the undue process of law. Judge's decision was on the contrary to the JCA Article 59 Paragraph (2), because the judge did not consider the social study report. The judges punished IR imprisonment for 2 months 15 days based on the retributive (revenge) philosophy of punishment, which should be the restorative (recovery). It also suggested that IR should be returned to his parents. Keywords: undue process of law, juvenile delinguency, children rightsABSTRAKArtikel ini menganalisan putusan Pengadilan Negeri Bandung. Pada kasus ini, terdakwa (IR) telah didakwa bersama teman-temannya yang sudah dewasa yang bekerja di bidang transportasi umum dalam permainan taruhan yang bernilai ribuan. Dalam kajian terhadap kasus ini, hakim seharunya mengetahui lebih mendalam terkait undang-undang Peradilan Anak pasal 55, 57, dan 58. Dari awal persidangan, IR tidak didampingi oleh orang tuanya, pendamping hukum, dan atau supervsi dari komunitas pemerhati masalah anak. Dalam putusan, hakim tidak memberikan peluang bagi orang tuanya untuk mengungkapkan hal-hal yang menguntungkan IR. Pasal 59 UU Pengadilan anak mensyaratkan adanya hukum acara anak, sementara putusan hakim justru kebalikannya karena tidak mempertimbangkan hasil kajian sosial. Hakim memutuskan IR dihukum 2 bulan 15 hari berdasarkan filosofi hukuman, padahal seharusnya berdasarkan filosofi restoratif dan juga mengembalikan IR kepada orang tuanya. Kata kunci: hukum acara pengadilan anak, peradilan anak, hak anak
DISPARITAS PUTUSAN TERKAIT PENAFSIRAN PASAL 2 DAN 3 UU PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI Melani melani
Jurnal Yudisial Vol 7, No 2 (2014): DISPARITAS YUDISIAL
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v7i2.82

Abstract

ABSTRAKPenemuan hukum oleh hakim dalam putusan pengadilan sangatlah penting. Namun apabila penemuan tersebut didasarkan pada penafsiran hukum yang keliru, maka langkah tersebut tidaklah dapat dikatakan sebagai penemuan hukum dan justru akan berimplikasi pada munculnya kekecewaan masyarakat. Hasil analisis terhadap 13 putusan pengadilan menunjukkan adanya disparitas penafsiran hukum baik secara horizontal maupun vertikal atas Pasal 2 dan 3 Undang-Undang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Di antara penafsiran hukum yang paling menonjol yang digunakan hakim adalah penafsiran restriktif, sehingga unsur “setiap orang” dalam Pasal 2 ditafsirkan sebagai orang yang bukan pegawai negeri atau pejabat negara, sedangkan unsur “setiap orang” dalam Pasal 3 ditafsirkan sebagai pegawai negeri atau pejabat negara. Penafsiran tersebut tidaklah masuk akal karena berakibat pegawai negeri atau pejabat negara tidak dapat dijerat dengan Pasal 2 (perbuatan melawan hukum) dan hanya dapat dijerat dengan Pasal 3 (penyalahgunaan wewenang). Ancaman hukuman minimal Pasal 3 jauh lebih ringan daripada ancaman hukuman minimal Pasal 2, sehingga putusan yang didasarkan pada penafsiran restriktif tersebut  berimplikasi pada ketidakadilan dan ketidakpastian hukum. Di samping itu secara penafsiran sistematis hal demikian bertentangan dengan payung hukum pidanakarena menurut Pasal 52 KUHP, ancaman bagi tindak pidana dalam jabatan ditambah sepertiga.Kata kunci: penemuan hukum, korupsi, penyalahgunaan wewenang.ABSTRACTLaw making method (rechtsvinding), either by using interpretation or construction by the judge is of great importance. However, once it is based on the incorrect law interpretation, it cannot be regarded as law making since it will result in public disappointment. The conclusion of the analysis of thirteen court decisions points to a red line of a disparity in law interpretation, either horizontally or vertically against Article 2 and 3 of the Law on Corruption Eradication. Among the most prominent law interpretation deployed by the judges is the restrictive interpretation, which has made the element of “any person” in Article 2 interpreted as people who are not civil servants or state officials, whereas the element of “everyone” in Article 3 interpreted as civil servants or state officials. The unreasonable interpretation has caused the civil servants or state officials cannot be trapped by Article 2 (act against the law) and can only be trapped by Article 3 (abuse of authority). The minimum penalty set out in article 3 is lenient than that in Article 2, and therefore, such decision based onrestrictive interpretation, could bring about injustice and legal uncertainty. Therefore that kind by systematical interpretation is against the Criminal Law as affirmed on Article 52 of the Criminal Code stating the threat of criminal acts in the department is enhanced by onethird. Keywords: law making method (rechtsvinding), corruption, abuse of authority.
Co-Authors