Disparitas Penjatuhan Pidana Terhadap Pelaku Usaha Yang Memperdagangkan Benih Jagung Bantuan Pemerintah (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 261/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Gpr, Putusan Nomor 262/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Gpr, Putusan Nomor 8/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Gpr)

Anggi Syahbani, Eny Suastuti
{"title":"Disparitas Penjatuhan Pidana Terhadap Pelaku Usaha Yang Memperdagangkan Benih Jagung Bantuan Pemerintah (Studi Kasus Putusan Nomor 261/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Gpr, Putusan Nomor 262/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Gpr, Putusan Nomor 8/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Gpr)","authors":"Anggi Syahbani, Eny Suastuti","doi":"10.21107/il.v4i1.18872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Decision Number 261/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Gpr, Decision Number 262/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Gpr, and Decision Number 8/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Gpr, where the perpetrators are business actors who have committed criminal acts due to trade in goods and/or services that are designated as goods and/or services that are prohibited from being traded and violate Article 110 of Law Number 7 of 2014 concerning Trade. Of the three decisions, the sentencing is different, especially the size of the criminal sanction and the problem is what is the basis for the judge's sentencing in the three decisions resulting in a different sentence. This aims to find out the basis of punishment used by judges in deciding a case related to business actors trading Government goods, so that evaluation can be carried out in the future. So the approach used is the case approach by examining cases related to the issues at hand which have become court decisions. The results of the study show that of the three decisions there is disparity in criminal decisions because each panel of judges has differences in proving and fulfilling each element in the article based on the legal facts revealed in the trial. In addition, the Panel of Judges also used the evidence presented at the trial, especially the amount of maize seeds aided by the Government traded by business actors as a basis for sentencing. Then the Panel of Judges in the three decisions also used a non-juridical basis for sentencing based on the objectives of the sentencing and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the business actors. Therefore, this has led to differences in the punishment of business actors who trade corn seeds with the help of the Government.","PeriodicalId":407285,"journal":{"name":"INICIO LEGIS","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INICIO LEGIS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21107/il.v4i1.18872","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Decision Number 261/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Gpr, Decision Number 262/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Gpr, and Decision Number 8/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Gpr, where the perpetrators are business actors who have committed criminal acts due to trade in goods and/or services that are designated as goods and/or services that are prohibited from being traded and violate Article 110 of Law Number 7 of 2014 concerning Trade. Of the three decisions, the sentencing is different, especially the size of the criminal sanction and the problem is what is the basis for the judge's sentencing in the three decisions resulting in a different sentence. This aims to find out the basis of punishment used by judges in deciding a case related to business actors trading Government goods, so that evaluation can be carried out in the future. So the approach used is the case approach by examining cases related to the issues at hand which have become court decisions. The results of the study show that of the three decisions there is disparity in criminal decisions because each panel of judges has differences in proving and fulfilling each element in the article based on the legal facts revealed in the trial. In addition, the Panel of Judges also used the evidence presented at the trial, especially the amount of maize seeds aided by the Government traded by business actors as a basis for sentencing. Then the Panel of Judges in the three decisions also used a non-juridical basis for sentencing based on the objectives of the sentencing and the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the business actors. Therefore, this has led to differences in the punishment of business actors who trade corn seeds with the help of the Government.
对贩卖政府种子的企业的犯罪不平等(案件编号261/Pid)。Sus/2019/PN Gpr,判决262/Pid。Sus/2019/PN Gpr,裁决8/Pid。鞋子PN - 2021 Gpr图像)
第261/Pid号决定。Sus/2019/PN Gpr,决议号262/Pid。su /2019/PN Gpr和8号决策/Pid。Sus/2021/PN Gpr,其中犯罪者是因货物和/或服务贸易而实施犯罪行为的商业行为者,这些货物和/或服务被指定为禁止交易的货物和/或服务,违反了2014年第7号贸易法第110条。在这三种判决中,量刑不同,特别是刑事制裁的大小不同,问题是法官的量刑依据是什么,从而导致了不同的量刑。这是为了找出法官在判定企业行为者交易政府商品的案件时所使用的处罚依据,以便将来进行评价。所以使用的方法是案例方法,通过审查与已成为法院判决的手头问题相关的案例。研究结果表明,在这三个判决中,刑事判决存在差异,因为每个法官小组根据审判中揭示的法律事实,在证明和履行该条的每个要素方面存在差异。此外,法官小组还使用审判时提出的证据,特别是商业行为者交易政府援助的玉米种子的数量作为量刑的依据。然后,法官小组在这三项决定中也根据量刑目标和商业行为者的加重和减轻情节使用了非司法依据进行量刑。因此,这导致对在政府帮助下交易玉米种子的商业行为者的惩罚有所不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信