ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP PUTUSAN PIDANA NOMOR: 335/PID.B/2015/PN.BGL TENTANG PREJUDICIEEL GESCHIL DALAM KAITANNYA TERHADAP KEPASTIAN HUKUM (Studi Putusan Nomor 335/PID.B/2015/PN.BGL)
| Main Author: | Bastianingsih, Yunita Enggar |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis NonPeerReviewed Book |
| Bahasa: | eng |
| Terbitan: |
, 2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
http://eprints.umm.ac.id/42283/1/PENDAHULUAN.pdf http://eprints.umm.ac.id/42283/2/BAB%20I.pdf http://eprints.umm.ac.id/42283/3/BAB%20II.pdf http://eprints.umm.ac.id/42283/4/BAB%20III.pdf http://eprints.umm.ac.id/42283/5/BAB%20IV.pdf http://eprints.umm.ac.id/42283/6/LAMPIRAN.pdf http://eprints.umm.ac.id/42283/ |
Daftar Isi:
- The verdict number: 335/Pid.B/2015/Pn.Bgl that consisted of Prejudicial Geschil as containing on Article 81 KUHP is become the basis upon which the verdict gives authority not obligation to a criminal judge to suspend investigation while waiting for the judgment of controversy. The method used in this study was normative yudiris approach method. The source of primary data was obtained from the verdict number: 335/Pid.B/2015/Pn.Bgl. Meanwhile, the source of secondary data was obtained from legal documents, book, research finding, thesis, dissertation, and act. The data collection technique implied were studied literature documents and reviewed the verdict. The result of the study was analyzed using content analysis technique. This study found that the judge on deciding the judgement did not pay attention to the legal certainty aspect and the principle of quick, simple, and low cost. It was proved by the fact that the panel of judge did not consider the facts that had already proven in trial but saw only the defendant’s exception (procedurally). If it saw from legal certainty point of view, the verdict imposed was ambiguous between prejudicial au action or prejudicial au judgement. However, if it saw from the principle of quick, simple and low-cost point of viewed, the verdict imposed had violated the principle. The reason was because it was convoluted, time-consumed, and cost drain. The Suggestion is the judge need to be thorough in making court judgment, whether in considering the facts in the trial, aspects of legal certainty, or principle of justice.