提高印尼刑事诉讼法专家的作用&荷兰法律制度的经验教训

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
Josua Sitompul
{"title":"提高印尼刑事诉讼法专家的作用&荷兰法律制度的经验教训","authors":"Josua Sitompul","doi":"10.15742/ilrev.v8n1.385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article attempts to scrutinize the role of expert under KUHAP and examine how Indonesian courts have interpreted and applied relevant rules and principles of the expert in selected cybercrime cases. It finds that the main role of expert in such cases is providing the courts with opinions on the legal and technical meanings of the legal provisions at stake and their contextualization in the cases. This raises a question whether law enforcement agencies comprehend the execution of the provisions. It also shows that law enforcement agencies are not always interested in getting digital forensic examination from which electronic evidence may be produced. It emphasizes that role of expert under KUHAP is equivocal and views the need to improve the role and principles. In order to improve the role of experts under Indonesian criminal law, the article describes and explains the salient features of expert evidence under Dutch law. The article concludes by making a series of recommendations.","PeriodicalId":13484,"journal":{"name":"Indonesia Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"IMPROVING THE ROLE OF EXPERTS UNDER INDONESIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE DUTCH LEGAL SYSTEM\",\"authors\":\"Josua Sitompul\",\"doi\":\"10.15742/ilrev.v8n1.385\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article attempts to scrutinize the role of expert under KUHAP and examine how Indonesian courts have interpreted and applied relevant rules and principles of the expert in selected cybercrime cases. It finds that the main role of expert in such cases is providing the courts with opinions on the legal and technical meanings of the legal provisions at stake and their contextualization in the cases. This raises a question whether law enforcement agencies comprehend the execution of the provisions. It also shows that law enforcement agencies are not always interested in getting digital forensic examination from which electronic evidence may be produced. It emphasizes that role of expert under KUHAP is equivocal and views the need to improve the role and principles. In order to improve the role of experts under Indonesian criminal law, the article describes and explains the salient features of expert evidence under Dutch law. The article concludes by making a series of recommendations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indonesia Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indonesia Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v8n1.385\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indonesia Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v8n1.385","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文试图审视专家在KUHAP下的作用,并研究印度尼西亚法院如何在选定的网络犯罪案件中解释和应用专家的相关规则和原则。它发现,专家在这类案件中的主要作用是向法院提供有关法律条款的法律和技术含义及其在案件中的背景的意见。这就提出了一个问题,即执法机构是否理解这些规定的执行。它还表明,执法机构并不总是对可能产生电子证据的数字法医检查感兴趣。强调专家的作用是模棱两可的,认为有必要改进专家的作用和原则。为了完善印度尼西亚刑法中专家的作用,本文对荷兰刑法中专家证据的突出特点进行了描述和解释。文章最后提出了一系列建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
IMPROVING THE ROLE OF EXPERTS UNDER INDONESIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE DUTCH LEGAL SYSTEM
This article attempts to scrutinize the role of expert under KUHAP and examine how Indonesian courts have interpreted and applied relevant rules and principles of the expert in selected cybercrime cases. It finds that the main role of expert in such cases is providing the courts with opinions on the legal and technical meanings of the legal provisions at stake and their contextualization in the cases. This raises a question whether law enforcement agencies comprehend the execution of the provisions. It also shows that law enforcement agencies are not always interested in getting digital forensic examination from which electronic evidence may be produced. It emphasizes that role of expert under KUHAP is equivocal and views the need to improve the role and principles. In order to improve the role of experts under Indonesian criminal law, the article describes and explains the salient features of expert evidence under Dutch law. The article concludes by making a series of recommendations.
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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 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