Perkembangan Dan Karakteristik Bukti Petunjuk Dalam Rangka Menyongsong Rancangan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
he Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) has established five types of evidence. However, of the five types, there is clue evidence as a type of evidence that belongs to the second degree and is indirect evidence, namely evidence that does not stand alone or indirect evidence that explains a fact in a criminal event. This clue evidence is only owned by the judge and the application of this evidence is authoritative under the subjectivity of a wise judge. The application of clue evidence is guided by Article 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code and if analysed through the characteristics of evidence, there is a problem, namely how clue evidence can be declared as clue evidence when viewed from the characteristics of criminal law evidence. Furthermore, how the Draft Criminal Procedure Code in the future on the validity of evidence of clues that are not reformulated, and replaced with evidence of the judge's own observations. The results of this study found that towards the characteristics of criminal evidentiary law on clue evidence, the evidence should be acceptable, relevant, and legally obtained. However, some incidents of the application of clue evidence show an impression that deviates from the principle of lex certa, namely the principle of clarity, especially in the application by judges. Therefore, there is a need for an evaluative activity towards clue evidence so that it does not become a norm in the Draft Criminal Procedure Code and is more appropriately replaced with evidence of judge's observation. The term judge observation is more appropriate, because this evidence is based on the idea of balance and the purpose of the law of evidence. Throughout this research, this study uses a doctrinal legal research method through a statutory approach and conceptual approach, as well as using a study of the jurisprudence of the Dutch Court and Court Decisions in Indonesia, as well as the doctrines of legal experts.
Keywords : Evidence, Clues, Judge's Perception.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
A. Buku
Audit KUHAP: Studi Evaluasi Terhadap Keberlakuan Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia. Jakarta: Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), 2022.
Chazawi, Adami. Hukum Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Bandung: Alumni, 2006.
Dianti, Flora. Hukum Pembuktian Pidana Di Indonesia: Perbandingan HIR Dan KUHAP. Edisi Revisi. Jakarta Timur: Sinar Grafika, 2023.
Harahap, M. Yahya. Pembahasan Permasalahan Dan Penerapan KUHAP: Pemeriksaan Sidang Pengadilan, Banding, Kasasi, Dan Peninjauan Kembali. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2012.
Harris. Pembaharuan Hukum Acara Pidana Yang Terdapat Dalam H.I.R. Bandung: Firma Ekonomi, 1978.
Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum (Edisi Revisi). Revisi. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2016.
Nonet, Philippe, and Philip Selznick. Hukum Responsif. Translated by Rasul Muttaqien. Bandung: Nusa Media, 2018.
O.S. Hiariej, Eddy. Teori & Hukum Pembuktian. Jakarta: Erlangga, 2012.
Prodjodikoro, Wirjono. Hukum Acara Pidana Di Indonesia. Bandung: Penerbit Sumur, 1983.
Roberts, Graham B. “- Methodology in Evidence Facts in Issue, Relevance and Purpose” 19, no. 1 (n.d.).
Shidarta, B. Arief, trans. Ilmu Hukum. Teaching Materials Matakuliah Filsafat Hukum Magister(S.2) Ilmu Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia. Yogyakarta: UII Yogyakarta, n.d.
Soetarna, Hendar. Hukum Pembuktian Dalam Acara Pidana. Bandung: PT. Alumni, 2011.
B. Artikel Jurnal
De Wilde, B. “De Bewijsregeling in Het Concept-Wetboek van Strafvordering.” Platform Modernisering Strafvordering 1, no. 14 (August 2018). https://doi.org/10.5553/PMSV/258950952018001014001.
Edlin, Douglas E. Common Law Judging: Subjectivity, Impartiality, and the Making of Law. University of Michigan Press, 2016. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.3783964.
Mansour Fallah, Sara. “The Admissibility of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence before International Courts and Tribunals.” The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 19 (August 26, 2020): 147–76. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341420.
Ribeiro, Gustavo. “Relevance, Probative Value, and Explanatory Considerations.” The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 23, no. 1–2 (April 1, 2019): 107–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712718816740.
C. Website
“Jurisprudentie eigen waarnemingen rechter - NJ 2007, 134 Eigen waarneming van de rechter als wettig - Studeersnel.” Accessed July 22, 2024. https://www.studeersnel.nl/nl/document/vrije-universiteit-amsterdam/beginselen-strafrecht/jurisprudentie-eigen-waarnemingen-rechter/10606036.
LII / Legal Information Institute. “Probative Value.” Accessed July 5, 2024. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probative_value.
D. Peraturan Perundang-Undangan
Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana
Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 2790 K/Pid.Sus/2016 jo. Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Sulawesi Tengah di Palu No. 18/Pid.Sus-TPK/2016/PT.PAL jo. Putusan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi pada Pengadilan Negeri Palu No. 9/Pid.Sus-TPK/2016/PN.Pal
Putusan No. 777/Pid.B/2016/PN.Jkt.Pst
Putusan Kasasi Hoge Raad Tahun 2019 dengan Nomor Perkara 17/05743
Putusan Gerechtshof te Arnhem Belanda tanggal 19 November 2004