P. A. Sanjaya, Zulkarnein Koto, Marsudin Nainggolan
{"title":"IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN HANDLING THE CRIME OF CORRUPTION COVID-19 AID FUND","authors":"P. A. Sanjaya, Zulkarnein Koto, Marsudin Nainggolan","doi":"10.33603/hermeneutika.v6i2.7460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The implementation of restorative justice (restorative justice) in the handling of corruption in the Covid-19 aid fund contained in Decision Number 8/Pid.Sus-Tpk/2021/PN.Jkt.Pst with the Defendant Harry Van Sidabukke, it can be seen that the panel of judges did not apply the concept of restorative justice. Because in its order, the Panel of Judges instead imposed a prison sentence of 4 (four) years on the Defendant. This means that the sanctions imposed by the judge still adopt the concept of retributive justice which focuses more on retaliation. The retaliation is manifested in the form of sentencing the Defendant. In addition, regarding the implementation of restorative justice in handling corruption cases of Covid-19 aid funds that need to be developed in Indonesian law enforcement, it is related to the provision of sanctions for the Defendant to focus more on recovering losses to state finances instead of focusing on retaliation. That is, in this case the application of the concept of restorative justice needs to be considered by the Panel of Judges so that the return of state losses becomes the main crime, not an additional crime. Because in the context of law enforcement in Indonesia, the restorative justice approach for corruption cases, both small-scale corruption and those that cause harm to state finances, has so far not been implemented. This is because the legal basis for the application of restorative justice for corruption cases in the internal prosecutor's office is not sufficient. This is because the current Attorney General's Regulation does not regulate corruption as a case that can be resolved through restorative justice.","PeriodicalId":206203,"journal":{"name":"HERMENEUTIKA : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum","volume":"124 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HERMENEUTIKA : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33603/hermeneutika.v6i2.7460","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
The implementation of restorative justice (restorative justice) in the handling of corruption in the Covid-19 aid fund contained in Decision Number 8/Pid.Sus-Tpk/2021/PN.Jkt.Pst with the Defendant Harry Van Sidabukke, it can be seen that the panel of judges did not apply the concept of restorative justice. Because in its order, the Panel of Judges instead imposed a prison sentence of 4 (four) years on the Defendant. This means that the sanctions imposed by the judge still adopt the concept of retributive justice which focuses more on retaliation. The retaliation is manifested in the form of sentencing the Defendant. In addition, regarding the implementation of restorative justice in handling corruption cases of Covid-19 aid funds that need to be developed in Indonesian law enforcement, it is related to the provision of sanctions for the Defendant to focus more on recovering losses to state finances instead of focusing on retaliation. That is, in this case the application of the concept of restorative justice needs to be considered by the Panel of Judges so that the return of state losses becomes the main crime, not an additional crime. Because in the context of law enforcement in Indonesia, the restorative justice approach for corruption cases, both small-scale corruption and those that cause harm to state finances, has so far not been implemented. This is because the legal basis for the application of restorative justice for corruption cases in the internal prosecutor's office is not sufficient. This is because the current Attorney General's Regulation does not regulate corruption as a case that can be resolved through restorative justice.
第8/ pid . su - tpk /2021/PN.Jkt号决定所载关于在处理Covid-19援助基金腐败问题时实施恢复性司法(恢复性司法)。从被告Harry Van Sidabukke案可以看出,法官小组并没有适用恢复性司法的概念。因为在其命令中,法官小组反而对被告判处了4年徒刑。这意味着法官施加的制裁仍然采用报复性司法的概念,更侧重于报复。这种报复表现为对被告进行判决。此外,关于在处理新冠肺炎援助资金腐败案件中实施恢复性司法,这需要在印尼执法中发展,这与提供制裁措施有关,使被告更多地关注恢复国家财政损失,而不是专注于报复。也就是说,在这种情况下,法官小组需要考虑恢复性司法概念的适用,以便使归还国家损失成为主要罪行,而不是一项附加罪行。因为在印度尼西亚的执法背景下,对于腐败案件,无论是小规模腐败还是对国家财政造成损害的腐败案件,恢复性司法方法迄今尚未得到实施。这是因为在内部检察官办公室对腐败案件适用恢复性司法的法律依据不充分。这是因为现行的《总检察长条例》没有将腐败规定为可以通过恢复性司法解决的案件。