PERBEDAAN PUTUSAN PRAPID P.N. TARUTUNG NO. 6/PID.PRA/2020 DAN PUTUSAN PRAPID P.N. MEDAN NO. 5/PID.PRA/2021

Jenda Riahta Silaban, Madiasa Ablisar, S. Sunarmi, Mahmud Mulyadi
{"title":"PERBEDAAN PUTUSAN PRAPID P.N. TARUTUNG NO. 6/PID.PRA/2020 DAN PUTUSAN PRAPID P.N. MEDAN NO. 5/PID.PRA/2021","authors":"Jenda Riahta Silaban, Madiasa Ablisar, S. Sunarmi, Mahmud Mulyadi","doi":"10.46576/lj.v3i2.3103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTDecision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 21/PUU-XII/2014,date. 28/04/2015, expanded the prepid object regarding \"the validity of the determinationof the suspect\". One of the cases regarding testing the validity of the suspectdetermination in this study was between the Pre-Trial Decision at the Tarutung DistrictCourt No. 6/Pid.Pre/2020, date. 31/08/2020 which is different from the Medan DistrictCourt No. 5/Pid.Pre/2021, date. 16/02/2021 An. Petitioner \"P.S.H\". The problems are:Factors that influence the disparity in the pretrial decision on the determination of differentcorruption suspects in the Prapid P.N.Trt Decision. No. 6/Pid.Pra/2020 with the Decisionof Prapid P.N.Mdn. No. 5/Pid.Pre/2021; and Analysis of legal considerations for thedisparity of the pretrial decision. This research is normative legal research, which isdescriptive analysis in nature. The Investigating Prosecutor at the North SumatraProsecutor's Office has done this and corrected the entire series of investigations andinvestigations, so the determination of the suspect he has determined is appropriate anddeclared valid by the pretrial judge at the Medan District Court. In the context of theinvestigation conducted by the Attorney General's Office Investigator HumbangHasundutan, it was actually only an error in the administration of investigations andinvestigations. The administrative error, by setting the suspect first, instead of findingsufficient evidence as ordered by law. Determination of suspects should be carried outbased on Article 183 jo. Article 184 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code jo.Article 422 Regulation of the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia No. PERJA-039/A/JA/10/2010 concerning Administrative and Technical Management of Cases ofSpecial Crimes.Keywords: Pretrial; The validity of the determination of the suspect; District Court.","PeriodicalId":33353,"journal":{"name":"Law Reform Jurnal Pembaharuan Hukum","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law Reform Jurnal Pembaharuan Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46576/lj.v3i2.3103","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

ABSTRACTDecision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 21/PUU-XII/2014,date. 28/04/2015, expanded the prepid object regarding "the validity of the determinationof the suspect". One of the cases regarding testing the validity of the suspectdetermination in this study was between the Pre-Trial Decision at the Tarutung DistrictCourt No. 6/Pid.Pre/2020, date. 31/08/2020 which is different from the Medan DistrictCourt No. 5/Pid.Pre/2021, date. 16/02/2021 An. Petitioner "P.S.H". The problems are:Factors that influence the disparity in the pretrial decision on the determination of differentcorruption suspects in the Prapid P.N.Trt Decision. No. 6/Pid.Pra/2020 with the Decisionof Prapid P.N.Mdn. No. 5/Pid.Pre/2021; and Analysis of legal considerations for thedisparity of the pretrial decision. This research is normative legal research, which isdescriptive analysis in nature. The Investigating Prosecutor at the North SumatraProsecutor's Office has done this and corrected the entire series of investigations andinvestigations, so the determination of the suspect he has determined is appropriate anddeclared valid by the pretrial judge at the Medan District Court. In the context of theinvestigation conducted by the Attorney General's Office Investigator HumbangHasundutan, it was actually only an error in the administration of investigations andinvestigations. The administrative error, by setting the suspect first, instead of findingsufficient evidence as ordered by law. Determination of suspects should be carried outbased on Article 183 jo. Article 184 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code jo.Article 422 Regulation of the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia No. PERJA-039/A/JA/10/2010 concerning Administrative and Technical Management of Cases ofSpecial Crimes.Keywords: Pretrial; The validity of the determination of the suspect; District Court.
摘要印度尼西亚共和国宪法法院第21/PUU-XII/2014号决定,日期。28/04/2015,扩大了关于“嫌疑人认定的有效性”的前置对象。在本研究中关于检验嫌疑犯判定的有效性的一个案例是塔鲁东地区法院第6/Pid号审前判决。前/ 2020,日期。31/08/2020与棉兰第五区法院不同。前/ 2021,日期。16/02/2021。请愿者“P.S.H”。问题是:影响《快速公审判决》中不同腐败嫌疑人的审前判决差异的因素。6号/ Pid。Pra/2020与快速p.n.m.dn的决定5号/ Pid.Pre / 2021;审前判决差异的法律考量分析。本研究属于规范性法律研究,本质上属于描述性分析。北苏门答腊检察官办公室的调查检察官已经做到了这一点,并纠正了整个系列的调查和调查,因此他所确定的嫌疑人的确定是适当的,并且由棉兰地区法院的预审法官宣布有效。在总检察长办公室调查员humbang hasundan进行调查的背景下,这实际上只是调查和调查管理中的一个错误。行政上的错误,没有按照法律要求找到充分的证据,而是把嫌疑人放在首位。嫌疑犯的确定应根据第183条的规定进行。《刑事诉讼法》第184条第1款规定。《印度尼西亚共和国总检察长条例》第422条。PERJA-039/A/JA/10/2010:关于特殊犯罪案件的行政和技术管理。关键词:预审;认定犯罪嫌疑人的有效性;地方法院。
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
12 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