Publication Search

Discretion exercised by election management bodies constitutes an administrative instrument that is functionally necessary to prevent stagnation in electoral processes under conditions of legal vacuum, normative ambiguity, or extraordinary circumstances. However, in practice, discretionary decisions often generate public concern and expose election officials to the risk of criminalization, particularly when such discretion is assessed through a formalistic and result oriented criminal law paradigm. This study aims to analyze the construction of criminal liability of election administrators for the use of discretion in conditions of electoral stagnation, by examining the paradigm shift from the old Indonesian Criminal Code to the new Criminal Code and its implications for criminal law enforcement under the Criminal Procedure Code. This research employs a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The findings reveal that the old Criminal Code tended to facilitate policy criminalization by emphasizing formal violations and objective consequences, whereas the new Criminal Code introduces a substantive approach centered on subjective fault, official purpose, and rationality of action. Nevertheless, the lack of synchronization with the Criminal Procedure Code which remains focused on conventional evidentiary standards causes discretionary actions of election administrators to remain legally ambiguous. Therefore, harmonization between substantive criminal law and criminal procedure law, along with a transformation in law enforcement reasoning, is essential to ensure that discretion exercised by election officials is assessed proportionally, contextually, and in line with democratic principles.

This study analyzes the construction of criminal liability in the crime of handling stolen goods, focusing on situations where the perpetrator purchases or receives goods without knowing they are the result of a crime, especially when the economic value is relatively small, i.e., below Rp5,000,000. This normative study uses a legislative approach by examining Article 591 of Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP), as well as a conceptual approach to the theory of fault (schuld) and the principle of proportionality. The study's findings show that in transactions involving low-value goods, proving the subjective element of "knowing or should have known" becomes highly problematic because the element of intent (dolus) is often not met without objective suspicious indications. The concept of price fairness plays a key role as the primary indicator of normal transactions and weakens the assumption that the perpetrator should suspect the illegal origin of the goods. This study recommends that law enforcement consider using non-criminal mechanisms, such as restitution or mediation, to achieve substantive justice and avoid excessive criminalization.

Criminal liability is a form of imposing punishment on the perpetrator of a crime because of his/her unlawful actions. In other words, criminal liability determines whether a person will be acquitted or convicted of a crime that has been committed. This process involves the transfer of the existing punishment for the crime to the perpetrator. This research is a normative research. The results of the research show that Criminal liability for perpetrators who participate in the crime of murder, anyone who intentionally helps, plans, or plays an active role in murder can be held criminally responsible, either as the main perpetrator or as a participant (medeplichtige or medepleger). The sanctions imposed depend on the role and level of involvement of each perpetrator, in accordance with the principle of criminal responsibility and the element of error in criminal law. This must be reviewed carefully by the judge so that in making a decision on the defendant, it can have a deterrent effect on the perpetrator and not cause unrest for the victim's family regarding the decision handed down by the judge. The judge's decision to impose a light sentence on the perpetrator who participated in a crime that resulted in the death of a person shows an imbalance in law enforcement. This injustice can be caused by the judge's non-objective considerations, weak evidence, or lack of bias towards justice for the victim. This kind of decision risks weakening the deterrent effect and public trust in the justice system.

The role of the TNI is very important in creating and maintaining the security of the community in fulfilling human rights, but based on the long history in Indonesia, it is suspected that there has been violence and serious human rights crimes committed by state apparatus and security actors. The principle of command responsibility for military commanders, police superiors and other civilian superiors is at least three reasons that underlie the thinking of military commanders, police superiors and other civilian superiors, namely the commander or superior who has the power to give orders and is responsible for the failure to control or control his subordinates. This research examines the following issues: 1) How is criminal responsibility for crimes against humanity committed by TNI soldiers or troops in security restoration operations after the occurrence of military operations other than war (OMSP); 2) Which court is authorized to try the case of crimes against humanity committed by TNI soldiers or troops in security restoration operations after the occurrence of military operations other than war (OMSP). This type of research is normative legal research using the approach method used, namely the statutory approach and concept approach. Source of legal material. The sources of legal materials used are primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. Legal material search techniques are carried out by literature study or document study. 

This study aims to analyze the form of criminal liability imposed on perpetrators of corruption involving internet village funds in Flores Timur Regency. Corruption in the management of village funds, particularly those allocated for internet infrastructure development, has become a serious concern due to its direct impact on the quality of public services and the welfare of rural communities. This research employs a normative juridical method with a case approach and the analysis of relevant statutory regulations. Data were obtained through literature study and case documentation. The findings indicate that perpetrators of corruption in the internet village fund program can be held criminally liable under Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption. Criminal liability involves elements of fault, unlawful acts, and state financial losses. In addition, the role of law enforcement agencies and public oversight are crucial factors in the enforcement of laws against such criminal acts.

Law Number 31 of 2004 concerning Fisheries as amended by Law Number 45 of 2009 concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 2004 concerning Fisheries recognizes corporations as subjects of criminal acts in criminal acts in the fisheries sector, but the corporations are not held criminally responsible.This research is a normative legal research, using a statutory approach and a conceptual approach with literature study techniques or document studies. The processing of legal materials is carried out with several processes, namely the validity of legal materials, classification of legal materials, recording legal materials and analysis of legal materials. Analysis of legal materials is carried out in a normative qualitative juridical manner with descriptive and prescriptive analysis. The results of this study indicate  first, the regulation of corporate criminal liability in the current Fisheries Law still has shortcomings/weaknesses, namely it does not clearly formulate when a corporation is said to have committed a crime and based on the history of the development of corporations as subjects of criminal law, corporate criminal liability in the current Fisheries Law is still at stage II where corporations are recognized as perpetrators of criminal acts, but their criminal liability has not directly affected the corporation and only the corporate administrators are responsible. Second, the regulation of corporate criminal liability in the future can be seen in the Fisheries Bill which has answered the weaknesses/deficiencies in the Fisheries Law and has accommodated corporate criminal liability where corporations can be subject to principal or additional criminal sanctions for the crimes they commit.

This study is motivated by the issue of criminalizing drug couriers, who in judicial practice are often equated with the main perpetrators, even though in reality they occupy a subordinate position in the drug distribution network. The lack of clarity in the differentiation of roles in Law No. 35 of 2009 on Narcotics has led to the application of criminal liability that tends to be formalistic and has the potential to disregard substantive justice. This study aims to analyze the form of criminal liability of Class I drug couriers and assess whether the Pekanbaru District Court Decision Number 119/Pid.Sus/2025/PN Pbr has reflected justice in the imposition of criminal penalties. The research method used is normative juridical with a legislative approach, case approach, and conceptual approach. The results of the study show that the criminal liability imposed on couriers in the verdict is direct as the main perpetrator, without considering the theory of the perpetrator's role, degree of fault, and the defendant's capacity to be held responsible. The judge emphasized the fulfillment of the elements of the act as formulated in Article 114 of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics, without adequate analysis of the mens rea and the factual contribution of the courier in the structure of the crime. Justice in this study is understood as substantive justice, which requires consistency between the punishment, role, and degree of fault of the perpetrator. Proportional punishment is interpreted as the imposition of sanctions that clearly distinguish between couriers as subordinate actors and the main actors who control the narcotics network. This study concludes that the criminal liability of narcotics couriers must be based on individualization of punishment and proportionality so that law enforcement not only fulfills legal certainty but also reflects substantive justice.