Korupsi Dan Pembalikan Beban Pembuktian

This paper was intended to answer a question on the extent of the effectiveness of a reversal burden of proof as stipulated in positive (prevailing) Indonesia law, that is, as provided for in Law Number 31 of 1999 on Eradication of Corruption Crime. Then, a problem that rose next was: could the application of reversal burden of proof in proving a corruption crime case prevent or reduce or even eliminate totally corruption crimes in Indonesia? This research built on a theoretical frame of thought from Roscoe Pound, who maintains that law is a tool of social engineering. This concept was cited by Muchtar Kusumaatmadja, who adapted it to Indonesia conditions and transformed it to be law as a social engineering medium. Law should be made as a medium of reforming and resolving all problems that emerge in community, including corruption crimes. One of the things to reform is the law of proof system, that is, from a conventional proof system to a reversal system. This paper was written by a juridical-normative method, that is, by studying legislations, both contained in laws and in literature/books on legal science, particularly legislations relating to reversal burden of proof. Then, the results, in a form of juridical aspect, were written in a descriptive-analytical form. The conclusion of this research was an answer to the problems put forward above, that is: Corruption crimes have been occurring continuously till now in Indonesia. Thus, Law Number 31 of 1999, Article 37, has not been effective yet in eradicating corruption crimes. Therefore, it needs to apply a pure reversal burden of proof by avoiding the incidence of bureaucratic chaos

Investigator Issue in Financial Service Crime in Indonesia

The objective of this paper is to address a question of the effectiveness of Financial Service Authority (Otoritas Jasa Keuangan - OJK) investigators in eradicating financial service crimes in Indonesia. This question arises because in Law on Financial Service Authority there are OJK's investigators with an investigatory authority on OJK crimes, including; banking, capital market, insurance, pension fund, financing institutions, and other financial service institution sectors. Meanwhile, there have been other investigators with an authority to investigate, namely, public prosecutor, police, and KPK (Indonesia's corruption eradicating commission). The theoretical framework of this paper was grounded in the thoughts of Aristotle, who says that the goal of law is to achieve justice, and that of Hans Kelsen's stuffen theory. The method of writing was juridical-normative, by studying legislations, both contained in laws themselves and in literatures/books of legal science, particularly those related to Financial Service Authority. The result was in a form of juridical aspect and written in a descriptive-analytical form. The conclusion of this paper was as follows: There was an overlapping of authorities between OJK's investigators and public attorney's investigators, police, and KPK, be they in the investigation of general crimes and that of special crimes/corruption. As for the effectiveness of OJK's investigators, it should be proved yet in the future

Masalah Mafia Peradilan dan Korupsi di Indonesia

The terminology mafia or Cosa Nostra derived from the Italian term with a negative sense that means an activity of organized crime networks. Furthermore, the terminology of mafia in courts has been rose in Indonesia since the new order era and increasingly in the reform era. Such terminology can be defined as an organized activity performs in court from the beginning stages of investigation until the investigation, prosecution and execution, either in criminal, civil, or state administration court. In its activities, the Mafioso (people who act mafia in courts), often use an unlawful act such as bribery, by giving a gratuity, to the law enforcement officers on purpose to influence their decisions to fulfill the wishes of the Mafioso. What such Mafioso done is an action of corruption. This research focuses on the problem of mafia in courts and corruption and its impact to the law enforcement purposes that are achieving legal certainty and justice in society, and some ways to combat them

Corruption and Reversal Burden of Proof

This paper, entitled Corruption and Reversal Burden of Proof, was intended to deal with a question on the extent of the effectiveness of a reversal burden of proof as stipulated in positive (applicable)Indonesia law, that is, as provided for in Law Number 31 of 1999 on Eradication of Corruption Crime.Then, a problem that rose next was: could the application of reversal burden of proof in proving a corruption crime case prevent or reduce or even eliminate totally corruption crimes in Indonesia?This research built on a theoretical frame of thought from Roscoe Pound, who maintains that law is a tool of social engineering. This concept was cited by Muchtar Kusumaatmadja, who adaptedit to Indonesia conditions and adjusted it to be law as a social engineering medium. Engineering is meant here as a transformation of the thinking ways of people from traditional thinking ways to modern ones. Law should be made as a means in resolving the entire problems that emerge between and among community, including corruption crimes. One of the things that needs to be changed is a law of proof law system, that is, from a conventional proof system to be a reversal one. This paperwas written by a juridical-normative method, that is, by studying legislations, be they are contained in laws and those contained in literature/books on legal science, particularly legislations related to reversal burden of proof. Then, the results, in a form of juridical aspect, was written in a descriptiveanalytical form. The overall conclusion of this research was an answer of the problems posed above, that is: Corruption crimes have been continuously occurring till now in Indonesia. Thus, Law Number 31 of 1999, particularly Article 37, has not been effective yet in eradicating corruption crimes

DOKTER, PASIEN DAN MALPRAKTIK

The purpose of this paper is to answer the questions and problems that give a rise to disputes between physicians and their patient and the liabilities of physicians to their patients in case a malpractice. The research method used was a juridical-normative approach, by studying applicable legislations, both contained in laws themselves and in legal references/books. The result in a juridical aspect was written in a descriptive-analytical form. The conclusion of this paper is: that disputes have occurred due to malpractices that the physicians committed to their patients, and that physicians' liability involved criminal, private, and administrative aspects. Tulisan ini, bertujuan untuk menjawab pertanyaan dan masalah penyebab perselisihan antara dokter dengan pasien dan pertanggungjawaban dokter terhadap pasien dalam hal terjadi malpraktik. Metode penulisan yang digunakan yaitu pendekatan yuridis normatif, dengan mempelajari peraturan Perundang-undangan, baik yang ada dalam undang-undang itu sendiri maupun yang ada dalam literatur/buku ilmu pengetahuan hukum. Hasilnya berupa aspek yuridis dituangkan dalam bentuk deskriptif analitis. Adapun kesimpulan dari tulisan ini adalah: Perselisihan terjadi akibat dari malpraktik dokter terhadap pasien dan pertanggungjawaban dokter meliputi pidana, perdata dan etik