Trial Proving in Electronic Criminal Case Trial Based On the Dignified Justice Perspective

Ius Poenale Pub Date : 2022-06-29 DOI:10.25041/ip.v3i1.2452
N. Pakpahan, T. Prasetyo, E. H. Setyorini, Y. A. Mangesti
{"title":"Trial Proving in Electronic Criminal Case Trial Based On the Dignified Justice Perspective","authors":"N. Pakpahan, T. Prasetyo, E. H. Setyorini, Y. A. Mangesti","doi":"10.25041/ip.v3i1.2452","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Trial proving in Indonesia has always been limited to Criminal Procedural Law and other regulations. Following the recent development of electronic criminal case trials, there has not been any precise regulation aside from Supreme Court Regulation 4 of 2020. The contradiction between KUHAP and Supreme Court Regulation causes problems, especially regarding trial proving. The purpose of the paper is to provide a legal solution to the problem of the legal emptiness regarding the regulation of trial proving in electronic criminal case trials from the perspective of Dignified Justice that will provide advantageous, responsive, and adaptive justice towards the needs of the community. The methodology of this research is based on normative research. The normative research methods used in this research are the statute approach, normative approach, and comparative approach. The result showed there shouldn't be a conflict between the effect of KUHAP and Supreme Court Regulation. Yet, the regulation of trial proving in an electronic criminal trial should be regulated at a statute level.","PeriodicalId":34813,"journal":{"name":"Ius Poenale","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ius Poenale","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25041/ip.v3i1.2452","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

Trial proving in Indonesia has always been limited to Criminal Procedural Law and other regulations. Following the recent development of electronic criminal case trials, there has not been any precise regulation aside from Supreme Court Regulation 4 of 2020. The contradiction between KUHAP and Supreme Court Regulation causes problems, especially regarding trial proving. The purpose of the paper is to provide a legal solution to the problem of the legal emptiness regarding the regulation of trial proving in electronic criminal case trials from the perspective of Dignified Justice that will provide advantageous, responsive, and adaptive justice towards the needs of the community. The methodology of this research is based on normative research. The normative research methods used in this research are the statute approach, normative approach, and comparative approach. The result showed there shouldn't be a conflict between the effect of KUHAP and Supreme Court Regulation. Yet, the regulation of trial proving in an electronic criminal trial should be regulated at a statute level.
基于尊严正义视角的电子刑事案件审判举证
印度尼西亚的审判证明一直局限于《刑事诉讼法》和其他法规。随着最近电子刑事案件审判的发展,除了最高法院2020年第4号条例外,没有任何确切的规定。KUHAP和最高法院条例之间的矛盾导致了问题,尤其是在审判证明方面。本文的目的是从尊严司法的角度,为电子刑事案件审判中审判证明监管的法律空白问题提供法律解决方案,为满足社会需求提供有利、回应和适应性的司法。本研究的方法论以规范研究为基础。本研究采用的规范研究方法有规约法、规范法和比较法。结果表明,KUHAP的效力与最高法院条例之间不应存在冲突。然而,对电子刑事审判中的审判证明的监管应在法规层面进行监管。
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
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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