Publication Search

The crime of receiving stolen goods, as regulated in Article 480 of the Criminal Code (KUHP), is an offence that plays a crucial role in the continuation of the principal crime, particularly theft. Receivers provide a market for stolen goods, thereby indirectly encouraging perpetrators to continue their actions. This article aims to analyse the implementation of Article 480 of the KUHP in judicial practice, with a focus on proving the element of ‘knowing or reasonably suspecting’ that the goods purchased were obtained through criminal activity. This study uses a qualitative method with a case study approach through direct observation of a trial at the M. District Court. The observations show that the panel of judges successfully proved the defendant's guilt as a fence through a series of trial facts, such as the unreasonable purchase price, consistent testimony from the perpetrator of the theft, and the defendant's own admission that he had been suspicious. The judge's decision, which was lighter than the prosecutor's demands, also reflected considerations of substantive justice and humanity in addition to legal certainty. This study concludes that the effective enforcement of Article 480 of the Criminal Code in court plays an important role in breaking the chain of crime and providing a deterrent effect not only for the main perpetrators but also for those who participate in enjoying the proceeds of crime.

The crime of receiving stolen goods, as regulated in Article 480 of the Criminal Code (KUHP), is an offence that plays a crucial role in the continuation of the principal crime, particularly theft. Receivers provide a market for stolen goods, thereby indirectly encouraging perpetrators to continue their actions. This paper investigates how Article 480 of the KUHP in judicial practice, with a focus on proving the element of ‘knowing or reasonably suspecting’ that the goods purchased were obtained through criminal activity. This study uses a qualitative method with a case study approach through direct observation of a trial at the M. District Court. The observations show that the panel of judges successfully proved the defendant's guilt as a fence through a series of trial facts, such as the unreasonable purchase price, consistent testimony from the perpetrator of the theft, and the defendant's own admission that he had been suspicious. The judge's decision, which was lighter than the prosecutor's demands, also reflected considerations of substantive justice and humanity in addition to legal certainty. This study concludes that the effective enforcement of Article 480 of the Criminal Code in court plays an important role in breaking the chain of crime and providing a deterrent effect not only for the main perpetrators but also for those who participate in enjoying the proceeds of crime.  

Terrorism is considered a crime against humanity and poses a serious threat to the sovereignty of states as it has an international scope and impact. This crime threatens global security and peace and undermines the welfare of society, thus requiring decisive and sustained eradication efforts to protect and respect human rights at large. radicalism reflects an attitude or view that is extreme and seeks social or political change in ways that are controversial or outside the norm. Perpetrators of terrorism often have radical views and choose violent acts as a way to achieve their goals. Prevention of terrorism through deradicalization is a proactive step and requires caution with consideration of the plurality of Indonesian society and the vulnerability of plurality to social conflict.

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. 

The renewal of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) through the Draft Law (RUU) KUHAP opens up space for in-depth philosophical reflection on the relationship between law, justice, and humanity. This article examines the challenges of harmonizing the principle of due process of law, which emphasizes respect for individual rights in every legal process, with the criminal justice system, which is oriented towards efficiency and the purpose of punishment. This harmony is not only a technical and normative matter, but also a matter of shared understanding of what is meant by justice in the context of a more humane and human rights-based criminal justice system. Using a philosophical legal perspective, this article explores the potential for conflict and convergence between the two principles, and seeks common ground within the framework of Pancasila legal values ​​and Islamic law that prioritize humanity, substantive justice, and a balance between individual rights and the public interest. The renewal of the RUU KUHAP, in this context, is not merely a structural change, but a journey towards a legal system that guarantees the depth of justice, which is not only seen from a procedural perspective, but also from the moral and social essence of the law itself.