PERTIMBANGAN PASAL 55 DAN PASAL 56 KITAB UNDANG - UNDANG HUKUM PIDANA SEBAGAI DASAR PENERAPAN PIDANA YANG TIDAK SAMA TERHADAP PUTUSAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI

Abstract

Lyfendana Furqon Mashuri, Dr. Ismail Navianto, SH., MH., Dr. Lucky Endrawati, SH., MH., Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya fenda.vixioner@gmail.comABSTRAK Pertimbangan Pasal 55 dan Pasal 56 Kitab Undang - Undang Hukum Pidana Sebagai Dasar Penerapan Pidana yang Tidak Sama Terhadap Putusan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Pemilihan skripsi ini dilatar belakangi karena pemutusan pemidanaan pada tindak pidana korupsi dirasa belum sepenuhnya adil. Konsep equality before the law masih perlu dipertanyakan lagi terkait dengan realitas yang ada, dimana disparitas pidana tampak nyata dalam penegakan hukum, bentuknya perlakuan peradilan yang tidak sama terhadap sesama pelaku tindak pidana sejenis yang kemudian diberi hukuman yang berbeda. Putusan pemidanaan yang berbeda terjadi terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2223 K/Pid.Sus/2012 dan 1616 K/Pid.Sus/2013 menggunakan pasal 12 huruf b dan 12 huruf a, Hakim sebelum memutus suatu perkara harus memperhatikan pertimbangan yuridis dan non yuridis yakni melihat pada dakwaan jaksa penuntut umum, keterangan saksi, alat bukti, barang bukti, dan keterangan terdakwa, hal – hal yang meringankan dan memberatkan. Terjadinya disparitas disebabkan karena belum adanya pedoman pemidanaan bagi para hakim untuk meminimalisir disparitas putusan pemidanaan. Padahal melihat pada kedua putusan tersebut pemberian hukuman yang sangat berat bisa dijatuhkan untuk memberikan efek jera kepada para pelaku tindak pidana korupsi. Sehingga tujuan hukum bisa tercapai. Kata Kunci: pertimbangan pasal 55 dan 56 KUHP, pertimbangan Hakim, putusan tindak pidana korupsi, disparitas, tujuan hukum.  ABSTRACT The consideration of making article 55 and article 56 of Penal Code as the basic consideration for giving sentence that is not the same with the sentence given to the act of corruption. This topic was chosen because the sentence given for corruption is not completely fair. The concept of equality before the law is still questionable related to the existig reality where disparity in punishment is still visible in law enforcement. It came in the form of different punishment given to the same case of crime. Different punishment also applied to the Supreme Court’s decree number 2223 K/Pid.Sus/2012 and 1616 K/Pid.Sus/2013 using rticle 12 letter b and article 12 letter a. Before making a decision on a case, a judge shoudl consider juridical and non juridical consideration, the information from the witnesses, evidence, and the information from the accused in terms of aspects that are the aggravating and mitigating factors. The disparity was caused by the absence of guideline in giving sentence provided for the judge in order to minimize the disparity in giving punishment. Meanwhile looking back at the decisions made on the cases, a severe punishment could have been imposed to give deterrent effect to the perpetrators of corruption act in order to reach the objectives of the law. Keywords: the consideration of article 55 and 56 of Penal Code, Judge’s consideration, punishment for corruption act, disparity, ovjective of la

Similar works

Full text

Kumpulan Jurnal Mahasiswa Fakultas HukumProvided a free PDF (195.62 KB)

article/2504oai:ojs.hukum.studentjournal.ub.ac.id:article/2504
Last time updated on April 9, 2020

This paper was published in Kumpulan Jurnal Mahasiswa Fakultas Hukum.

Having an issue?

Is data on this page outdated, violates copyrights or anything else? Report the problem now and we will take corresponding actions after reviewing your request.