Publication Search

The aim of this research is to find out how criminal responsibility is for perpetrators of theft with weights in the Legal Area of ​​the Medan District Court. The research method used is a normative legal method with a type of normative juridical research, where research focuses on studying the application of rules or norms in positive law. The results of this research show that the criminal and his partner were legally proven and promised to be guilty of committing the crime of "aggravated theft", the factor that caused the perpetrator to commit the crime of theft was because the criminal was addicted to drugs. The judge's decision stated that the fraudster did not find anything that could eliminate criminal liability for himself. Criminal liability for the defendant is imprisonment for: 10 (ten) months in prison minus the period of isolation that has been served and with an order that the defendant remain in detention.

The spread of crime in cyberspace does not escape the crime of pornography, taking advantage of the large storage capacity that Telegram offers has provoked a number of ignorant people to use this social media to spread paid pornographic content. The purpose of this study is to examine and understand what criminal liability and compensation can be imposed on perpetrators of spreading and buying and selling negative content in the Telegram application. Writing scientific journal articles uses a normative research methodology, in which this research uses a statutory approach. The results of the study show that criminal liability that can ensnare perpetrators of pornographic crimes is regulated more specifically based on the principle of lex specialis derogate lex generalis in Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions.    

There are so many cases where the perpetrators are more than one person, which occur in our society. Often there is debate in imposing punishment on the direct makers and the indirect makers of criminal acts. To impose a sentence on a case, the judge must know which maker is directly or indirectly and bases his decision apart from the law and also considers the demands of the public prosecutor. Sometimes the perpetrators of the crime of participation are not touched at all by the law so that what they should be prosecuted by law is not even processed. The purpose of this study is to examine the criminal responsibility of the perpetrators of the crime of counterfeiting. The research conducted is normative legal research. Based on the results of the research the defendant was proven guilty of committing the crime of "making and using fake documents" as stipulated and subject to criminal penalties in Article 264 paragraph (1) of the 1st Criminal Code and second article 264 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code. The crime of inclusion is regulated in Article 55 and Article 64 of the Criminal Code

Pelaku unjuk rasa anarkis dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban pidana terhadap terjadinya kerusakan maupun korban baik korban luka apalagi korban jiwa. Penelitian ini tentang Analisis Yuridis Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Bagi Pelaku Anarkis dalam Unjuk Rasa dengan permasalahan apakah faktor-faktor penyebab terjadinya unjuk rasa anarkis dan bagaimanakah analisis yuridis pertanggungjawaban pidana bagi pelaku anarkis dalam unjuk rasa? Pendekatan penelitian ini yakni yuridis normatif  yang berdasarkan data sekunder yakni teori-teori hukum pakar dari literatur, buku-buku, rujukan internet. Faktor-faktor penyebab terjadinya unjuk rasa anarkis yakni  rasa kecewa pengunjuk rasa terhadap tuntutan, tidak dipatuhinya aturan hukum unjuk rasa, kurangnya antisipasi aparat keamanan, tindakan represif aparat keamanan, adanya provokator,  penggunaan alkohol dan obat terlarang, keinginan orang-orang tertentu untuk disebut pahlawan, keterlibatan orang-orang yang tidak memahami aturan pelaksanaan unjuk rasa,  keterlibatan orang-orang yang hanya sekedar ikut-ikutan, keterlibatan anak di bawah umur, adanya orang yang membawa senjata tajam, kurangnya antisipasi penanggung jawab unjuk rasa dan lemahnya pengamanan. Pertanggungjawaban pidana bagi pelaku anarkis dalam unjuk rasa dapat merujuk Pasal 16 Undang-Undang Nomor 9 Tahun 1998 bahwa pelaku atau peserta pelaksanaan penyampaian pendapat di muka umum yang melakukan perbuatan melanggar hukum, dapat dikenakan sanksi hukum sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Adapun ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku dimaksud antara lain Pasal 170 KUHP Pasal 406 dan Pasal  407 KUHP atau Pasal 212 dan Pasal 214 KUHP. Pertanggungjawaban pidana dapat diterapkan terhadap pelaku, yang menyuruhlakukan, turut serta melakukan dan pembantuan tindak pidana dalam unjuk rasa anarkis