刑事妨碍司法的辩护律师豁免权丧失

SASI Pub Date : 2022-12-30 DOI:10.47268/sasi.v28i4.1071
Sabela Gayo
{"title":"刑事妨碍司法的辩护律师豁免权丧失","authors":"Sabela Gayo","doi":"10.47268/sasi.v28i4.1071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The enforceability of Article 16 and the Constitutional Court decision number 26/PUU-XI/2013 does not necessarily exempt advocates from alleged intervention in the enforcement process in carrying out their profession to defend clients, but that right can be lost said the lawyer committed a criminal act of Obstruction of Justice.Purposes of the Research: The purpose of this study is to explain the right of attorney immunity can be lost when committing a criminal act of Obstruction of Justice.Methods of the Research: The research method used is normative legal research with a statute legal approach and a conceptual approach.Results of the Research: Advocates in terms of exercising their profession require immunity rights, but the use of immunity rights has definitive conditions that must be considered as stipulated in Article 16 of law no. 18 of 2003. The act of an advocate should be suspected of committing a criminal act of obstruction of justice if the act is not related to his professional duties and is not based on good faith. The action taken by The Advocate in relation to his professional duties has the meaning that the action is carried out for the benefit of the client's defense. Good faith referred to in Article 16 is to carry out professional duties for the sake of establishing justice based on the law to defend the interests of its clients.","PeriodicalId":53158,"journal":{"name":"SASI","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Loss of Advocate Immunity Due To Obstruction Of Justice Based On Criminal Provisions\",\"authors\":\"Sabela Gayo\",\"doi\":\"10.47268/sasi.v28i4.1071\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: The enforceability of Article 16 and the Constitutional Court decision number 26/PUU-XI/2013 does not necessarily exempt advocates from alleged intervention in the enforcement process in carrying out their profession to defend clients, but that right can be lost said the lawyer committed a criminal act of Obstruction of Justice.Purposes of the Research: The purpose of this study is to explain the right of attorney immunity can be lost when committing a criminal act of Obstruction of Justice.Methods of the Research: The research method used is normative legal research with a statute legal approach and a conceptual approach.Results of the Research: Advocates in terms of exercising their profession require immunity rights, but the use of immunity rights has definitive conditions that must be considered as stipulated in Article 16 of law no. 18 of 2003. The act of an advocate should be suspected of committing a criminal act of obstruction of justice if the act is not related to his professional duties and is not based on good faith. The action taken by The Advocate in relation to his professional duties has the meaning that the action is carried out for the benefit of the client's defense. Good faith referred to in Article 16 is to carry out professional duties for the sake of establishing justice based on the law to defend the interests of its clients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SASI\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SASI\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v28i4.1071\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SASI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v28i4.1071","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

研究目的:本研究的目的是解释当实施妨碍司法的犯罪行为时,律师的豁免权可能会丧失。研究方法:研究方法为规范法研究,采用成文法研究方法和概念法研究方法。研究结果:辩护人在行使其职业时需要豁免权利,但豁免权利的使用有明确的条件,必须按照第16号法的规定予以考虑。2003年第18号。如果辩护人的行为与其专业职责无关,并且不是基于诚信,则该行为应涉嫌妨碍司法的刑事行为。辩护人根据其专业职责采取的行动意味着该行动是为了客户的辩护利益而进行的。第十六条所称诚信,是指依法伸张正义,维护委托人利益,履行专业职责。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Loss of Advocate Immunity Due To Obstruction Of Justice Based On Criminal Provisions
Introduction: The enforceability of Article 16 and the Constitutional Court decision number 26/PUU-XI/2013 does not necessarily exempt advocates from alleged intervention in the enforcement process in carrying out their profession to defend clients, but that right can be lost said the lawyer committed a criminal act of Obstruction of Justice.Purposes of the Research: The purpose of this study is to explain the right of attorney immunity can be lost when committing a criminal act of Obstruction of Justice.Methods of the Research: The research method used is normative legal research with a statute legal approach and a conceptual approach.Results of the Research: Advocates in terms of exercising their profession require immunity rights, but the use of immunity rights has definitive conditions that must be considered as stipulated in Article 16 of law no. 18 of 2003. The act of an advocate should be suspected of committing a criminal act of obstruction of justice if the act is not related to his professional duties and is not based on good faith. The action taken by The Advocate in relation to his professional duties has the meaning that the action is carried out for the benefit of the client's defense. Good faith referred to in Article 16 is to carry out professional duties for the sake of establishing justice based on the law to defend the interests of its clients.
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
44
审稿时长
3 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