Discretion of Government Officials in the Perspective of Corruption Crime Reviewed from the Theory of Criminal Removal Reason

Altje Agustin Musa, Jemmy Sondakh, Wempie Jh. Kumendong, Caecilia J. J. Waha
{"title":"Discretion of Government Officials in the Perspective of Corruption Crime Reviewed from the Theory of Criminal Removal Reason","authors":"Altje Agustin Musa, Jemmy Sondakh, Wempie Jh. Kumendong, Caecilia J. J. Waha","doi":"10.32535/jcda.v5i1.1389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Providing welfare for all citizens is the goal of the Indonesian state. In government administration, government officials are often faced with concrete social situations urgently to be addressed, while regulations are unclear. To overcome government stagnation, government officials are given the authority to act based on their own considerations, called discretion. The study aims to analyze the discretionary case and find the relationship between discretion in the perspective of corruption and the theory of criminal removal reason. The study finds that Criminal Code regulates Criminal Removal Reasons concerning defending to save on body, soul, or goods of someone/others, not government officials discretion to defend social interest. The Corruption Law does not regulate Criminal Removal Reason. In judicial corruption in Indonesia, Government officials' discretion was not sentenced because the decision/act is based on considerations of urgency, for the public interest, and does not benefit the government officials/others.","PeriodicalId":410101,"journal":{"name":"Journal of The Community Development in Asia","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of The Community Development in Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32535/jcda.v5i1.1389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Providing welfare for all citizens is the goal of the Indonesian state. In government administration, government officials are often faced with concrete social situations urgently to be addressed, while regulations are unclear. To overcome government stagnation, government officials are given the authority to act based on their own considerations, called discretion. The study aims to analyze the discretionary case and find the relationship between discretion in the perspective of corruption and the theory of criminal removal reason. The study finds that Criminal Code regulates Criminal Removal Reasons concerning defending to save on body, soul, or goods of someone/others, not government officials discretion to defend social interest. The Corruption Law does not regulate Criminal Removal Reason. In judicial corruption in Indonesia, Government officials' discretion was not sentenced because the decision/act is based on considerations of urgency, for the public interest, and does not benefit the government officials/others.
从刑事免除原因理论看腐败犯罪视角下的政府官员自由裁量权
为全体公民提供福利是印尼国家的目标。在政府管理中,政府官员经常面临着迫切需要解决的具体社会状况,而法规却不明确。为了克服政府的停滞不前,政府官员被赋予了根据自己的考虑行事的权力,即自由裁量权。本研究旨在对自由裁量权案例进行分析,找出腐败视角下的自由裁量权与刑事免除原因理论之间的关系。研究发现,刑法规定的刑事撤职理由是为了保护他人的身体、灵魂或物品,而不是政府官员为了维护社会利益的自由裁量权。《反腐败法》没有对刑事免职理由作出规定。在印度尼西亚的司法腐败中,政府官员的自由裁量权没有被判刑,因为该决定/行为是基于紧急考虑,出于公共利益,而不会使政府官员/其他人受益。
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