Criminal Convictions from The Perspective of The Proportionality Principle

Nurul Hisyam; Dicky Arganova A

doi:10.31941/pj.v22i1.4065

Authors

Nurul Hisyam Universitas Airlangga
Dicky Arganova A Universitas Airlangga

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31941/pj.v22i1.4065

Abstract

The absence of explicit guidelines and limitations for evaluating punishment based on the character of the offender creates a significant gap in the justice system. Without clear provisions, judges are left to rely solely on their own interpretation and knowledge when making decisions about punishment. This lack of guidance can lead to inconsistencies and potential biases in sentencing. To ensure fairness in the judicial process, it is essential for the principle of proportionality to be fully understood and applied when judges make their rulings. Proportionality refers to the idea that the severity of punishment should be directly proportional to the seriousness of the crime committed. The research aims to address two key problem statements. Firstly, it seeks to define punishment from the perspective of the proportionality principle. Secondly, the research aims to identify the factors that judges consider when imposing punishment. To achieve these research objectives, a normative research approach will be adopted. This approach involves analyzing legal principles, rules, and regulations to address the legal issues at hand

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Asmara, T., & Purnomo, M. H. (2011). Budaya ekonomi hukum hakim. Jurusan Sastra Indonesia, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Diponegoro (Fasindo).

Astawa, I. K., & Munasto, D. (2022). Tindakan Extrajudicial Killing Terhadap Terduga Pelaku Tindak Pidana Terorisme Dalam Perspektif Asas Presumption Of Innoncent Dan HAM. Jurnal Ilmiah Living Law, 14(1), 1–10.

Fletcher, G. P. (1998). Basic concepts of criminal law. Oxford University Press.

Gorbunova, L. V, Makarov, R. V, & Matveev, S. A. (2015). Aggravating Сircumstances. Significance and Correlation with Qualifying Signs. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(3 S7), 169.

Gunarto, M. P. (2009). Sikap memidana yang berorientasi pada tujuan pemidanaan. Mimbar Hukum-Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada, 21(1), 93–108.

Hananta, D. (2018). Pertimbangan keadaan-keadaan meringankan dan memberatkan dalam penjatuhan pidana/aggravating and mitigating circumstances consideration on sentencing. Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan, 7(1), 87–108.

Harahap, M. Y. (2000). Pembahasan dan Permasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP, Sinar Grafika. Jakarta.

Harkrisnowo, H. (2003). Rekonstruksi Konsep Pemidanaan: Suatu Gugatan terhadap Proses Legislasi dan Pemidanaan di Indonesia. Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia.

Hutabarat, D. T. H., Salam, A., Zuwandana, A., Al Azmi, C., Wijaya, C. R., Darnita, Tania, I., Lubis, L. K. A., Sitorus, M. A. P., Adawiyah, R., & Sinaga, R. (2022). Analysis of The Implementation of Law in every level of Society in Indonesia. Policy, Law, Notary and Regulatory Issues (POLRI), 1(2), 9–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55047/polri.v1i2.80

Jackson, V. C. (2014). Constitutional law in an age of proportionality. Yale Lj, 124, 3094.

Koto, I., & Lubis, T. H. (2021). Tindak Pidana Penyelundupan Pakaian Bekas Dalam Perspektif Teori Kepastian Hukum (Studi Kasus Di Kantor Bea Cukai Teluk Nibung Tanjung Balai). Buletin Konstitusi, 2(1).

Legg, A. (2012). The margin of appreciation in international human rights law: deference and proportionality. OUP Oxford.

Mahkamah Agung RI. (1994). Yurisprudensi Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia.

Mahmud, P. M. (2016). Pengantar Ilmu Hukum Edisi Revisi. Jakarta: Kencana Pranada.

Marzuki, P. M. (2013). Penelitian Hukum. Kencana.

Muladi. (1995). Kapita selekta sistem peradilan pidana. Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.

Peonaşu, C. (2015). Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances. Their Impact on Judicial Individualization of Punishment. Journal of Danubian Studies and Research, 5(1).

Ristroph, A. (2005). Proportionality as a principle of limited government. Duke LJ, 55, 263.

Salaeh, K. W. (1977). Tindak Pidana Korupsi dan Suap, Ghalai Indonesia, Jakarta. Ghalai Indonesia.

Saleh, M. (1991). Suatu Peringatan Bagi Cendekiawan Hukum Indonesia. Jakarta: Lembaga Pengkajian Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah.

Setiawan, H., Kalo, S., Ekaputra, M., & Yunara, E. (2021). Penerapan Asas Proporsionalitas Dalam Penjatuhan Pidana Terhadap Pelaku Peredaran Narkotika (Analisis Putusan Nomor: 669/Pid. Sus/2018/PN. Btm). Iuris Studia: Jurnal Kajian Hukum, 2(2), 264–275.

Singer, R. G. (2010). Proportionate Thoughts About Proportionality.

Soekanto, S. (2004). Faktor-faktor yang Mempengarungi Penegakan Hukum. Raja Grafindo Persada.

Soponyono, E. (2012). Kebijakan Perumusan Sistem Pemidanaan yang Berorientasi Pada Korban. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 41(1), 29–41.

Sudirman, A. (2007). Hati Nurani Hakim dan Putusannya Suatu Pendekatan dari Perspektif Ilmu Hukum Perilaku (Behavioral Jurisprudence) Kasus Hakim Bismar Siregar. PT. Citra Aditya Bakti.

Tumpa, H. A. (2012). Kontraversi Putusan Hakim. Varia Peradilan Majalah Hukum Ikatan Hakim Indonesia, 27.

Von Hirsch, A. (1992). Proportionality in the Philosophy of Punishment. Crime and Justice, 16, 55–98.

Willday, J. (1999). Understanding Justice: An Introduction to Ideas, Perspectives and Controversies in Modern Penal Theory. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 1, 80–81.

Wisnusubroto, A. (1997). Hukum dan Pengadilan di Indoesia. UNIKA Atma Jaya Yogyakarta.

Yanto, A., & Hikmah, F. (2023). Akomodasi Hukum Yang Hidup Dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana Nasional Menurut Perspektif Asas Legalitas. Recht Studiosum Law Review, 2(2), 81–91.

Zulfa, E. A. (2017). Proporsionalitas Penjatuhan Pidana. Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, 41(2), 298–315.