Volume 08 Issue 01 January 2025
1Benedictus Krisna Mukti, 2Beniharmoni Harefa
1,2Master of Law, Faculty of Law, University Pembangunan Nasional “Veteran” Jakarta
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v8-i1-01Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
The aim of this research is twofold, namely, to analyze how criminal decisions against perpetrators of criminal acts without the right to carry sharp weapons which contain disparities can achieve the theory of punishment, then explain how the theory of proof of the occurrence of criminal decisions against perpetrators of criminal acts without the right to carry sharp weapons which states that they occurred disparity. This research method is empirical juridical, and in this research three approaches are used, namely, the empirical juridical approach and can be called a legal sociological approach in providing justice to criminal offenders in this research, especially the decisions that will be studied, then the case approach), conceptual approach. As in the case approach used are three decisions, namely the Supreme Court Decision Number 1146 K/Pid.Sus/2015; Supreme Court Decision Number 1070 K/Pid.Sus/2016; Supreme Court Decision Number 566 K/Pid.Sus/2017. Meanwhile, the conceptual approach used is disparity and the objectives of criminal law, and evidence. The results of the research in this research are that the three decisions of the panel of judges prioritize the neo-classical school because why in the neo-classical school in its main principle it says not only to protect the interests of society, but also to protect the interests of individuals, then there is a theory of evidence in analyzing the three the decision.
KEYWORDS:disparity, criminal, court decisions, sentencing theories, the purpose of punishment
REFERENCES1) Adies Kadir, Menyelamatkan Wakil Tuhan, Jakarta, PT Semesta Merdeka Utama, 2018, hlm. 214.
2) Allan Manson, The Law of Sentencing, Irwin Law: 2001 hal. 92-93.
3) Amiruddin dan H. Zainal Asikin, Pengantar Metode Penelitian Hukum, Ed. 1-6, Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2012, h. 118.
4) Atin sri Pujiastuti & Josias Runturambi, Senjata Api Dan Penanganan Tindak Kriminal, Pustaka Obor Indonesia, Jakarta, 2015, hlm 6.
5) H. Setiyono, Kejahatan Korporasi Analisis Viktimologi Dan Pertanggungjawaban Korporasi Dalam Hukum Pidana, Banymedia Publishing, Malang, Cetakan pertama, Edisi kedua, 2003, h.,117.
6) Hans Kelsen, “Teori Umum Hukum dan Negara: Dasar-dasar Ilmu Hukum Normatif sebagai Ilmu Hukum Deskripti-Empirik”. Terjemahan Somardi, Jakarta: Bea Media Indonesia, 2007, h. 15-16.
7) https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senjata, Online: 09 April 2022, pukul 04.26 WIB
8) Litbang Mahkamah Agung, Kedudukan dan Relevansi Yurisprudensi untuk Mengurangi Disparitas Putusan Pengadilan, Puslitbang Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI: 2010 hal. 6.
9) Mahrus Ali, 2011, Dasar-dasar Hukum Pidana, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta, h. 185.
10) Runturambi, Josias & Pujiastuti, Atinl Sri, Senjatal Api danl Penanganan Tindak Kriminal. Jakarta: Pustaka Oborl Indonesia, 2015, hlm.6.
11) Soerjono Soekanto dan Sri Mamudji, Penelitian Hukum Normatif (Suatu Tinjauan Singkat), Rajawali Pers, Jakarta, 2010, h. 14.
12) Sudarto, Hukum Pidana Jilid 1A, Badan penyediaan Bahan-Bahan Kuliah FH Undip, Semarang, 1973, hal., 7.
13) Suhariyono AR, Penentuan Sanksi Pidana Dalam Suatu Undang-Undang, Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, Vol., 6 No., 4, 2009, h, 617
14) Suhariyono AR, Perumusan Sanksi Pidana Dalam Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan, Jurnal Perspektif, Vol., XVII No., 1, 2012, h., 27
15) Wahyu Nugroho, ‘Disparitas Hukuman dalam Perkara Pidana Pencurian Dengan Pemberatan’ (2012 5 (3) Jurnal Yudisial hlm. 262-263.
16) Wirjono Prodjodikoro, Tindak Tindak Pidana Tertentu Di Indonesia, P.T Eresco, Jakarta,1980, h. 3.
17) www://harkristutiharkrisnowo.com/disparitas, di kunjungi tanggal 2 Maret 2023 Pukul: 15.03.
18) Yustinus Suhardi Ruman, “Keadilan Hukum dan Penerapannya dalam Pengadilan”, Humaniora, Volume 3, Nomor 2, Oktober 2012, h. 348.