CD Skripsi

Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Terpidana Yang Telahdivonis Bersalah Tanpa Amar Perintah Penahanan (Studikasus putusan nomor 192/Pid.B/2015/Pn.Rgt)

---

ABSTRACT
The decision of Rengat District Court No. 192/Pid.B/2015/PN.Rgt does not
fully comply with the provisions of the Criminal Event Law (KUHAP) especially
Article 197 paragraph (1) letter k, and will certainly cause legal consequences.
The purpose of writing this thesis: first, to know the legal certainty of convicts
who have been convicted without amar restraining orders in Verdict No.
192/Pid.B/2015/PN.Rgt). Second, to find out the legal consequences of a verdict
against a convicted felon without amar restraining order in Verdict No.
192/Pid.B/2015/PN.Rgt).
The type of research used in this legal research is normative juridical
method. Therefore in this research the data analysis used is qualitative analysis.
In drawing conclusions the author uses deductive thinking methods that are ways
of thinking that draw conclusions from a statement or evidence that is general in
nature into a statement of a special nature.
From the results of the study, there are two main things that can be
concluded. First, the legal certainty of convicts who have been convicted without
amar restraining orders in the verdict No. 192/Pid.B/2015/PN.Rgt is actually not
met, because the convicted who has in fact been convicted remains outside or still
in a free state so that there is no guarantee of justice or legal certainty in the
verdict. Verdict No. 192/Pid.B/2015/PN.Rgt does not contain Article 197
paragraph (1) letter k of the Criminal Code (KUHAP) does not provide legal
certainty, so the purpose of the law itself is not achieved because the true criminal
law is legalistic. Second, as a result of the law of the verdict that does not include
Article 197 paragraph (1) letter k of the Criminal Event Law (KUHAP) as the
verdict of case No. 192/Pid.B/2015/PN.Rgt) among others: By itself the verdict is
null and void, any verdict that is null and void is an invalid verdict and was
originally considered to have never existed, Such a verdict is not binding so that
the verdict is not attached to the executive force (non-executive), if the public
prosecutor executes it means that the act is arbitrary and unconstitutional and
violates human rights because it is contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) and
Article 28J of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia as well as Article 17
and Article 34 of Law No. 39 of 1999 on human rights.
The Author's Advice, First, is expected to make new regulations in the form
of Circular Letter of the Supreme Court (SEMA) on the guidelines of writing and
making decisions, especially criminalization decisions, so that in the
implementation of the judge's decision is able to meet the legal objectives of legal
certainty, justice and benefit. Second, it is expected that the implementation of a
strict supervision system and mechanisms for writing and making a verdict,
especially criminal justice decisions in order to create good criminal justice
effectiveness.
Keywords: Restraining Order – Article 197 of the Criminal Code – Legal
Certainty

---

Ketersediaan

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

-

No. Panggil

09 04. 121 (0032)

Penerbit

Pekanbaru : Universitas Riau – Fakultas Hukum – Hukum Pidana., 2021

Deskripsi Fisik

xii, 29 hlm.; ill.: 29 cm

Bahasa

Indonesia

ISBN/ISSN

-

Klasifikasi

09 04. 121 (0032)

Tipe Isi

-

Tipe Media

-

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

-

Subjek

HUKUM PIDANA

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

Daus

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar