CD Tesis

Pembaharuan Hukum Pidana Terhadap Keterangan Ahli Sebagai Alat Bukti Di Masa Mendatang

---

Criminal Law Renewal of Expert Testimony as Evidence In the Future was
appointed as the title of this thesis based on the thought that there is no legal
certainty regarding expert testimony as evidence. Eddy OS Hiariej said the legal
uncertainty relating to expert testimony as evidence stems from there being no
legal norm in the Criminal Procedure Code which stipulates that expert
information providers can be qualified as experts if the expert brings and shows a
letter of duty as an expert from his institution.In practice, the vagueness of the
judge's authority in determining what experts are needed by the judge in helping
to find the material truth carries negative implications for the judge examining the
case presented to him. The judge was reported to the judicial commission because
it was deemed to be siding with the expert of one of the parties presenting it. The
subject matter of the study in the research conducted. In connection therewith, the
formulation of the problem is set out as follows: 1. What is the arrangement for
the application of expert testimony as evidence in court? 2. How will the criminal
law be updated against expert testimony as evidence in the future? To answer this
question, researchers use normative legal research methods. The results showed:
1.The regulation for the application of expert testimony as evidence in court has
been stated in several articles in the Criminal Procedure Code including Article 1
point 28, Article 133, Article 180 and Article 186. Overall, the arrangement of
expert testimony as evidence as provided in the aforementioned articles has not
placed the judge in the primary position. 2. In the practice of expert examination
in today's trials, it is often found that incompetent experts, experts who side with
the person who pays for his services. In that connection, the judge is very limited
in his authority not to examine such an expert. 3.
The renewal of the criminal law against expert testimony as evidence in
the future must be realized in line with the Administration of Judicial Power,
where it can achieve a balance between the duty of the judge to find material truth
and the duty of the judge in realizing a trial that is carried out simply, quickly,
and at low cost.Unlike in the Netherlands, in Indonesia the ratification of
expertise is carried out by judges in the trial, not before the trial as is done by the
judicial system in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, "experts" are people who
have special skills, either due to education, training, courses or experience in a
particular and specialized field that are registered in the Court, while in
Indonesia experts are people who bring a letter of assignment from the agency
that assigned them, without any registration and periodic competency testing.The
regulatory legal aspects of expert testimony as evidence in the Criminal
Procedure Code, especially related to Articles 180 and 186 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, need to be clarified, furthermore, the Government and the
House of Representatives as institutions authorized to make laws and regulations
must improve the provisions of the criminal procedure law in the future relating
to expert testimony as evidence. The remedy in question is to give authority to the
xii
court (judge) to be able to accept or reject experts for examination before the
trial.
Key Words : Evidence, Expert Statement, Judge, Quick, Simple and Easy Trial

---

Ketersediaan

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

-

No. Panggil

2010241687

Penerbit

Pekanbaru : Universitas Riau – Pascasarjana – Tesis Ilmu Hukum., 2022

Deskripsi Fisik

-

Bahasa

Indonesia

ISBN/ISSN

-

Klasifikasi

2010241687

Tipe Isi

-

Tipe Media

-

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

-

Subjek

ILMU HUKUM

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

FATAH

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar