Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 3 Documents
Search

UNSUR SUBSOSIALITAS KRIMINALISASI PERBUATAN PADA PASAL 55 DAN 56 UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 5 TAHUN 2011 TENTANG AKUNTAN PUBLIK Aprilianda, Nurini; Sulistio, Faizin; Noerdajasakti, Setiawan
Arena Hukum Vol 6, No 1 (2013)
Publisher : Arena Hukum

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (830.296 KB) | DOI: 10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2013.00601.4

Abstract

Abstract This research was conducted to explore the basic idea behind the use of criminal provision in Article 55 and 56 of Act Number 5 of 2011 on Public Accountants. This search was conducted to locate and find the justification used for means of criminal law in the regulation of public accounting actions that are considered dangerous and harmful to society. This study tried to construct a theory of the use ”subsocialiteit” who was instrumental in the idea of the use of criminal law as a means of crime prevention in Act Number 5 of 2011. The results can be concluded is the basic idea of the use of criminal law in Article 55 and 56 of Act Number 5 of 2011 is based on some legislators ratio, namely: (1) Philosophically a safeguard against the profession as well as protection, (2) Provide legal certainty the public accountants and law enforcement, (3) Transparency and professionalism in making the financial statement audit, (4) Provide a deterrent effect, (5) Moral panic. The construction of the idea was based on the concept of ”subsocialiteit” and fears of harmful acts against the interests of the public accountant is realized by providing a model of criminalization that is expected to provide a balance in penal policy formulation, using a modeling and the legal principle approach (criminal). Key words: criminalization, subsociality AbstrakPenelitian ini dilakukan untuk menelusuri ide dasar yang melatarbelakangi penggunaan ketentuan pidana dalam Pasal 55 dan 56  Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2011 tentang Akuntan Publik. Penelusuran ini dilakukan untuk mencari dan menemukan dasar pembenaran yang digunakan untuk menggunakan sarana hukum pidana dalam pengaturan perbuatan akuntan publik yang dianggap berbahaya dan merugikan masyarakat. Penelitian ini mencoba mengkonstruksi penggunaan “teori subsosialitas” yang sangat berperan dalam ide pengunaan hukum pidana sebagai sarana penanggulangan kejahatan dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2011. Hasil  yang dapat disimpulkan adalah ide dasar penggunaan hukum pidana dalam Pasal 55 dan 56 Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2011 didasarkan pada beberapa rasio legis, yaitu: (1)Secara filosofis merupakan upaya perlindungan terhadap masyarakat sekaligus perlindungan profesi; (2)Memberikan kepastian hukum kepada akuntan publik dan penegak hukum; (3)Transparansi dan profesionalitas dalam pembuatan audit laporan keuangan; (4)Memberikan efek jera; (5)Kepanikan moral. Kontruksi terhadap ide yang disandarkan kepada konsep subsosialitas dan kekhawatiran akan berbahaya perbuatan akuntan publik terhadap kepentingan masyarakat diwujudkan dengan memberikan model kriminalisasi yang diharapkan memberikan keseimbangan dalam formulasi kebijakan penal, yaitu dengan menggunakan model pendekatan keseimbangan dan asas hukum (pidana).Kata kunci: kriminalisasi, subsosialitas
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN THE PERPECTIVE OF NON DEROGABLE RIGHTS Noerdajasakti, Setiawan
Brawijaya Law Journal Vol 3, No 1 (2016): Law and Human Rights Issues
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Brawijaya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (90.3 KB) | DOI: 10.21776/ub.blj.2016.00301.01

Abstract

Capital punishment is still exist as one of kind punishments in Indonesia. The existence of capital punishment is based on the Penal Code and other laws. On the other hand, however, according to Constitution 1945, MPR Decree Number XVII/MPR/1988 on Human Rights and Law Number 39 / 1999 on Human Rights, the right to live cannot be limited under any circumstances (non derogable). Capital punishment and the right to live as the right that cannot be limited under any circumstances (non derogable) are contradictive. This contradiction results a conflict of norm between legislations that legalize the existence of capital punishment and legislations that legalize the existence of the right to live.  Solutions should be resulted to solve the conflict of norms.
Legis Ratio Norms Article 64 of Law No. 1 Year 2004 Concerning State Treasure Pakpahan, Alman P.; Sudarsono, Sudarsono; Noerdajasakti, Setiawan; Permadi, Iwan
Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences Vol 4, No 3 (2021): Budapest International Research and Critics Institute August
Publisher : Budapest International Research and Critics University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.33258/birci.v4i3.2255

Abstract

Article 64 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law no. 1 of 2004 concerning the State Treasury, states firmly that the Treasurer and other officials who have been determined to compensate the state/regional losses in settlements with the dimensions of State Administrative Law may still be subject to administrative sanctions and/or criminal sanctions. And if the treasurer and other officials are processed under criminal law, the criminal decision does not relieve the claim for compensation that has been determined through a settlement with the dimensions of State Administrative Law. Such norms are regulated in Article 64 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law no. 1 of 2004 concerning the State Treasury, of course, has the purpose and intent (ratio legis) of the legislators. Based on research on the minutes of the discussion of the Draft Law no. 1 of 2004 concerning the State Treasury, the legislative ratio of Article 64 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) in general is 3 (three), namely: as a form of official accountability in carrying out office functions, punishment for Treasurers and Other Officials who are detrimental to State/Regional finances, and realizing the principle of returning State/Regional losses.