DISPARITAS PENJATUHAN PIDANA BERSYARAT DALAM PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI YANG DIANCAM PIDANA MINIMUM KHUSUS (Studi Kasus Putusan atas Terdakwa Melzan & Frederikus Frengky dan Putusan atas Terdakwa Siti Endarti & Anggono Wahyu)

Jelalu, Agnes Ayu Arvida (2024) DISPARITAS PENJATUHAN PIDANA BERSYARAT DALAM PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI YANG DIANCAM PIDANA MINIMUM KHUSUS (Studi Kasus Putusan atas Terdakwa Melzan & Frederikus Frengky dan Putusan atas Terdakwa Siti Endarti & Anggono Wahyu). S1 thesis, Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta.

Preview	Text (Agnes Ayu Arvida Jelalu) 200513721 0.pdf Download (1MB) | Preview
Preview	Text 200513721 1.pdf Download (795kB) | Preview
	Text 200513721 2.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (960kB)
Preview	Text 200513721 3.pdf Download (684kB) | Preview

Abstract

Law Number 31 Year 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 Year 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption does not regulate conditional punishment and in SEMA Number 7 Year 2012 an agreement is formulated that in principle the imposition of conditional punishment is not allowed in corruption crimes because the legislator has stipulated a special minimum punishment. In practice, there are still judges who impose conditional punishment in corruption cases that have been threatened with special minimum punishment, so that the decision then creates a disparity in punishment. The purpose of this study is to analyze the basis of the judge’s consideration that causes disparity in the imposition of conditional punishment on perpetrators of corruption crimes that are punishable by special minimum punishment. This research uses normative legal research methods. The result of this study are the basis of the judge’s consideration that causes disparity in the imposition of conditional punishment can be seen from the judge’s consideration regarding the level of guilt of the defendant, the circumstances or conditions surrounding the defendant, the return of state finansial losses as a mitigating factor, and the nominal amount of state finansial losses caused. The judge’s consideration in imposing conditional punishment in these two cases is not fully based on the same criteria and measures because there are no clear criteria in imposing conditional punishment in corruption cases. The suggestion from this problem is that the Supreme Court needs to update SEMA Number 7 Year 2012 letter C number 4 which contains the provisions on the imposition of conditional punishment by adding a clearer clause regarding in what cases conditional punishment can be imposed and not, as well as making clear criteria that can be taken into consideration in imposing conditional punishment.

Actions (login required)

View Item