《健康隔离法》第93条对法院裁决因果关系证明的批评

Mahrus Ali
{"title":"《健康隔离法》第93条对法院裁决因果关系证明的批评","authors":"Mahrus Ali","doi":"10.20885/iustum.vol29.iss3.art4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to analyze and evaluate the accuracy of the judges' legal considerations in proving a causal relationship in Article 93 of the Health Quarantine Act. This is a normative legal research by bearing in mind that what is studied are the legal facts and legal considerations of judges in 3 (three) court decisions that have permanent legal force in the case of Habib Rizieq Shihab, the case of Bambang Iswanto and Rahmatika Maulidia Ashar Sukarno, and the case of Agus Basunondo. The results of the study concluded that none of the court decisions correctly considered that the convict's actions were the cause of the emergence of public health emergencies. The proof of the effect has even shifted from the emergence of a public health emergency to a crowd, a result that is not stated in the offense of Article 93 of the Health Quarantine Act. This study recommends that the Supreme Court needs to make guidelines on steps to prove causality in court decisions.","PeriodicalId":239318,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kritik Terhadap Pembuktian Hubungan Kausalitas Dalam Putusan Pengadilan Terkait Pasal 93 Undang-Undang Kekarantinaan Kesehatan\",\"authors\":\"Mahrus Ali\",\"doi\":\"10.20885/iustum.vol29.iss3.art4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study aims to analyze and evaluate the accuracy of the judges' legal considerations in proving a causal relationship in Article 93 of the Health Quarantine Act. This is a normative legal research by bearing in mind that what is studied are the legal facts and legal considerations of judges in 3 (three) court decisions that have permanent legal force in the case of Habib Rizieq Shihab, the case of Bambang Iswanto and Rahmatika Maulidia Ashar Sukarno, and the case of Agus Basunondo. The results of the study concluded that none of the court decisions correctly considered that the convict's actions were the cause of the emergence of public health emergencies. The proof of the effect has even shifted from the emergence of a public health emergency to a crowd, a result that is not stated in the offense of Article 93 of the Health Quarantine Act. This study recommends that the Supreme Court needs to make guidelines on steps to prove causality in court decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":239318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol29.iss3.art4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol29.iss3.art4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在分析和评估《卫生检疫法》第93条中法官在证明因果关系时所考虑的法律因素的准确性。这是一项规范性的法律研究,考虑到所研究的是在Habib Rizieq Shihab案、Bambang Iswanto案和Rahmatika Maulidia Ashar Sukarno案以及Agus Basunondo案中具有永久法律效力的3(3)个法院判决中的法律事实和法官的法律考虑。研究结果得出的结论是,没有一项法院判决正确地认为罪犯的行为是突发公共卫生事件的原因。证明效果的证据甚至从“突发公共卫生事件”转移到了“人群”,这是《卫生检疫法》第93条所没有规定的结果。这项研究建议,最高法院需要制定指导方针,以证明法院判决中的因果关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Kritik Terhadap Pembuktian Hubungan Kausalitas Dalam Putusan Pengadilan Terkait Pasal 93 Undang-Undang Kekarantinaan Kesehatan
This study aims to analyze and evaluate the accuracy of the judges' legal considerations in proving a causal relationship in Article 93 of the Health Quarantine Act. This is a normative legal research by bearing in mind that what is studied are the legal facts and legal considerations of judges in 3 (three) court decisions that have permanent legal force in the case of Habib Rizieq Shihab, the case of Bambang Iswanto and Rahmatika Maulidia Ashar Sukarno, and the case of Agus Basunondo. The results of the study concluded that none of the court decisions correctly considered that the convict's actions were the cause of the emergence of public health emergencies. The proof of the effect has even shifted from the emergence of a public health emergency to a crowd, a result that is not stated in the offense of Article 93 of the Health Quarantine Act. This study recommends that the Supreme Court needs to make guidelines on steps to prove causality in court decisions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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