CD Tesis

Perbandingan Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Pelalawan Nomor 19.PID.SUS.LH/2016/PN.PLW Dan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2284 K/PID.SUS.LH/2016 Tentang Tanggung Jawab Pidana Yang Mengakibatkan Kerusakan Lingkungan Hidup

---

This study aims to contribute to the protection of the law for the environment, the existence of criminal liability must be clear in advance who can be held accountable, meaning that it must be ascertained who is declared as the perpetrators of certain criminal acts. One case of environmental crime is the Decision of the Pelalawan District Court No. 19.PID.SUS.LH / 2016 / PN.PLW, Operations Manager of PT. Langgam Inti Hebrindo. Consideration of the decision of the Pelalawan District Court Number 19.Pid.Sus.LH / 2016 / PN.Plw. Consideration of the decision of the Supreme Court Number 2284K / Pid.Sus.LH / 2016 Against the defendant as the Operational Manager that Caused Environmental Damage Comparison of the decisions of the Pelalawan District Court Number 19.Pid.Sus.LH / 2016 / PN.Plw and the Supreme Court Decision Number 2284 K /Pid.Sus.LH/2016.
The results showed that First, the Pelalawan District Court Judge who acquitted the defendant who was accused of Causing Environmental Damage, gave consideration that the prosecutor could not prove the environmental crime as charged, the judge was of the opinion that the defendant had carried out his duties according to the procedures and regulations. Second, the consideration of the Supreme Court's decision that the defendant l has fulfilled the element of criminal act which resulted in Environmental Damage was legally and convincingly proven guilty of committing a crime as charged by the public prosecutor in the second indictment, article 108 paragraph (1) of Law Number 39 of 2014 , but the judge did not give consideration to the decision. Third, Comparison of the decisions of the Pelalawan District Court and the Supreme Court's Decision, that there are differences in judges' considerations related to intentional elements, Means and Infrastructure of forest fire prevention tools, Judges of the Pelalawan District Court are of the opinion that the elements are not proven, whereas the Supreme Court Judges argue otherwise. Pelalawan District Court Judges both the chairman and each member of the panel of judges do not have an environmental judge certification as stipulated in Supreme Court Decree No. 134 / KMA / SK / IX / 2011, September 5, 2011, concerning the certification of the Environmental Judge. Whereas the Supreme Court Judges already have environmental certificates as desired by the Supreme Court's Decree.

Keywords: Comparison, Court Decision, Environmental Damage

---

Ketersediaan

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

-

No. Panggil

10 14. 219 (0015)

Penerbit

Pekanbaru : Universitas Riau – Pascasarjana – Tesis Ilmu Hukum., 2019

Deskripsi Fisik

xi, 124 hlm.; ill.; 29 cm

Bahasa

Indonesia

ISBN/ISSN

-

Klasifikasi

10 14. 219 (0015)

Tipe Isi

-

Tipe Media

-

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

-

Subjek

PASCASARJANA (MAGISTER) ILMU HUKUM

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

FATAH

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar