{"title":"Sebuah Perbandingan Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Korban Tindak Pidana Terorisme di Indonesia dan India","authors":"Anang Riyan Ramadianto","doi":"10.24905/diktum.v10i1.193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Terrorism is a crime that is a major threat to the maintenance of every country that poses a danger to security, world peace, and harms the welfare of society. This is inseparable from the suffering of victims of crimes who need legal protection from the state. The purpose of this study is to compare forms of legal protection in the normative and empirical settings given to victims of criminal acts in Indonesia and India. This study uses a qualitative research method with an empirical juridical approach and descriptive analytical research specifications. The research was conducted at the National Counter-Terrorism Agency, Jakarta and the India Center for Victimology and Psychological Studies, New Delhi. The data used include primary data and secondary data. Methods of collecting data through interviews and literature study. The data obtained is processed by data reduction, data display, data categorization. Presentation of data in the form of narrative text descriptions, with qualitative analysis methods. The results of the study indicate that the legal protection of victims of criminal acts in both countries has its advantages and disadvantages, as for legal protection that requires further attention regarding medical assistance, another matter is that the rights of victims of past crimes are limited to 22 June 2021. whereas in India it will not harm the victim. Meanwhile, there are factors that hinder the legal protection of victims of criminal acts in Indonesia and India, seen from (1) the legal substance, namely the Government Regulation of Law no. 5 of 2018 does not yet exist while in India there is no specific regulation regarding psychological and psychosocial rehabilitation, (2) the law is the lack of human resources (HR) in the National Counter-Terrorism Agency (BNPT) while in India there is a shortage of human resources at the National Investigation Agency (NIA) , and (3) legal culture, namely the existence of differences between related differences in India, the lack of legal knowledge of the people regarding their rights. \nTerrorism is a crime that is a major threat to the maintenance of every country that poses a danger to security, world peace, and harms the welfare of society. This is inseparable from the suffering of victims of crimes who need legal protection from the state. The purpose of this study is to compare forms of legal protection in the normative and empirical settings given to victims of criminal acts in Indonesia and India. This study uses a qualitative research method with an empirical juridical approach and descriptive analytical research specifications. The research was conducted at the National Counter-Terrorism Agency, Jakarta and the India Center for Victimology and Psychological Studies, New Delhi. The data used include primary data and secondary data. Methods of collecting data through interviews and literature study. The data obtained is processed by data reduction, data display, data categorization. Presentation of data in the form of narrative text descriptions, with qualitative analysis methods. The results of the study indicate that the legal protection of victims of criminal acts in both countries has its advantages and disadvantages, as for legal protection that requires further attention regarding medical assistance, another matter is that the rights of victims of past crimes are limited to 22 June 2021. whereas in India it will not harm the victim. Meanwhile, there are factors that hinder the legal protection of victims of criminal acts in Indonesia and India, seen from (1) the legal substance, namely the Government Regulation of Law no. 5 of 2018 does not yet exist while in India there is no specific regulation regarding psychological and psychosocial rehabilitation, (2) the law is the lack of human resources (HR) in the National Counter-Terrorism Agency (BNPT) while in India there is a shortage of human resources at the National Investigation Agency (NIA) , and (3) legal culture, namely the existence of differences between related differences in India, the lack of legal knowledge of the people regarding their rights.","PeriodicalId":297417,"journal":{"name":"Diktum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum","volume":"116 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diktum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24905/diktum.v10i1.193","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
Terrorism is a crime that is a major threat to the maintenance of every country that poses a danger to security, world peace, and harms the welfare of society. This is inseparable from the suffering of victims of crimes who need legal protection from the state. The purpose of this study is to compare forms of legal protection in the normative and empirical settings given to victims of criminal acts in Indonesia and India. This study uses a qualitative research method with an empirical juridical approach and descriptive analytical research specifications. The research was conducted at the National Counter-Terrorism Agency, Jakarta and the India Center for Victimology and Psychological Studies, New Delhi. The data used include primary data and secondary data. Methods of collecting data through interviews and literature study. The data obtained is processed by data reduction, data display, data categorization. Presentation of data in the form of narrative text descriptions, with qualitative analysis methods. The results of the study indicate that the legal protection of victims of criminal acts in both countries has its advantages and disadvantages, as for legal protection that requires further attention regarding medical assistance, another matter is that the rights of victims of past crimes are limited to 22 June 2021. whereas in India it will not harm the victim. Meanwhile, there are factors that hinder the legal protection of victims of criminal acts in Indonesia and India, seen from (1) the legal substance, namely the Government Regulation of Law no. 5 of 2018 does not yet exist while in India there is no specific regulation regarding psychological and psychosocial rehabilitation, (2) the law is the lack of human resources (HR) in the National Counter-Terrorism Agency (BNPT) while in India there is a shortage of human resources at the National Investigation Agency (NIA) , and (3) legal culture, namely the existence of differences between related differences in India, the lack of legal knowledge of the people regarding their rights.
Terrorism is a crime that is a major threat to the maintenance of every country that poses a danger to security, world peace, and harms the welfare of society. This is inseparable from the suffering of victims of crimes who need legal protection from the state. The purpose of this study is to compare forms of legal protection in the normative and empirical settings given to victims of criminal acts in Indonesia and India. This study uses a qualitative research method with an empirical juridical approach and descriptive analytical research specifications. The research was conducted at the National Counter-Terrorism Agency, Jakarta and the India Center for Victimology and Psychological Studies, New Delhi. The data used include primary data and secondary data. Methods of collecting data through interviews and literature study. The data obtained is processed by data reduction, data display, data categorization. Presentation of data in the form of narrative text descriptions, with qualitative analysis methods. The results of the study indicate that the legal protection of victims of criminal acts in both countries has its advantages and disadvantages, as for legal protection that requires further attention regarding medical assistance, another matter is that the rights of victims of past crimes are limited to 22 June 2021. whereas in India it will not harm the victim. Meanwhile, there are factors that hinder the legal protection of victims of criminal acts in Indonesia and India, seen from (1) the legal substance, namely the Government Regulation of Law no. 5 of 2018 does not yet exist while in India there is no specific regulation regarding psychological and psychosocial rehabilitation, (2) the law is the lack of human resources (HR) in the National Counter-Terrorism Agency (BNPT) while in India there is a shortage of human resources at the National Investigation Agency (NIA) , and (3) legal culture, namely the existence of differences between related differences in India, the lack of legal knowledge of the people regarding their rights.
恐怖主义是一种犯罪,对每个国家的维护构成重大威胁,对安全、世界和平构成危险,并损害社会福利。这与犯罪受害者的苦难密不可分,他们需要国家的法律保护。本研究的目的是比较印度尼西亚和印度在规范和经验背景下给予犯罪行为受害者的法律保护形式。本研究采用定性研究方法,结合实证法学方法和描述性分析研究规范。这项研究是在雅加达的国家反恐机构和新德里的印度受害者学和心理学研究中心进行的。使用的数据包括主要数据和次要数据。通过访谈和文献研究收集数据的方法。对得到的数据进行数据约简、数据显示、数据分类等处理。以叙事性文本描述的形式呈现数据,采用定性分析的方法。研究结果表明,两国对犯罪行为受害者的法律保护各有利弊,至于需要进一步关注医疗援助的法律保护,另一个问题是,过去犯罪受害者的权利仅限于2021年6月22日。而在印度,它不会伤害受害者。与此同时,印尼和印度也存在阻碍犯罪行为受害者法律保护的因素,从(1)法律实体,即《政府法规》(Government Regulation of Law no。5 2018年尚不存在,而在印度没有具体规定关于心理和社会心理康复,(2)法律是缺乏人力资源(HR)国家反恐机构(BNPT)在印度的人力资源短缺国家调查机构(NIA),和(3)的法律文化,即在印度相关的差异之间存在的差异,缺乏法律知识的人关于他们的权利。恐怖主义是一种犯罪,对每个国家的维护构成重大威胁,对安全、世界和平构成危险,并损害社会福利。这与犯罪受害者的苦难密不可分,他们需要国家的法律保护。本研究的目的是比较印度尼西亚和印度在规范和经验背景下给予犯罪行为受害者的法律保护形式。本研究采用定性研究方法,结合实证法学方法和描述性分析研究规范。这项研究是在雅加达的国家反恐机构和新德里的印度受害者学和心理学研究中心进行的。使用的数据包括主要数据和次要数据。通过访谈和文献研究收集数据的方法。对得到的数据进行数据约简、数据显示、数据分类等处理。以叙事性文本描述的形式呈现数据,采用定性分析的方法。研究结果表明,两国对犯罪行为受害者的法律保护各有利弊,至于需要进一步关注医疗援助的法律保护,另一个问题是,过去犯罪受害者的权利仅限于2021年6月22日。而在印度,它不会伤害受害者。与此同时,印尼和印度也存在阻碍犯罪行为受害者法律保护的因素,从(1)法律实体,即《政府法规》(Government Regulation of Law no。5 2018年尚不存在,而在印度没有具体规定关于心理和社会心理康复,(2)法律是缺乏人力资源(HR)国家反恐机构(BNPT)在印度的人力资源短缺国家调查机构(NIA),和(3)的法律文化,即在印度相关的差异之间存在的差异,缺乏法律知识的人关于他们的权利。