SULISTIAWAN , PRASETYO (2025) ANALISIS PUTUSAN HAKIM TERHADAP PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA PENGANIAYAAN (Studi Putusan Nomor 105/Pid.B/2022/PN Met). FAKULTAS HUKUM, UNIVERSITAS LAMPUNG.
|
File PDF
ABSTRAK.pdf Download (257Kb) | Preview |
|
![[img]](http://digilib.unila.ac.id/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
File PDF
SKRIPSI FULL.pdf Restricted to Hanya staf Download (3003Kb) |
|
|
File PDF
SKRIPSI FULL TANPA PEMBAHASAN.pdf Download (2758Kb) | Preview |
Abstrak (Berisi Bastraknya saja, Judul dan Nama Tidak Boleh di Masukan)
Penganiayaan imerupakan iperbuatan iyang imenyebabkan irasa isakit, iluka, iatau ipenderitaan ibaik ijasmani imaupun irohani ipada iorang ilain. iberdasarkan iputusan iNomor i105/Pid.B/2022/PN iMet. iPemidanaan i terhadap iterdakwa iterlampau iringan, iserta ihak ikorban ipenganiayaan ibelum isemestinya idijadikan isebagai isalah isatu ipertimbangan. iBerdasarkan ihal itersebut, irumusan imasalah idalam ipenelitian iini ibagaimanakah idasar ipertimbangan ihakim idalam imenjatuhkan iputusan iterhadap ipelaku itindak ipidana ipenganiayaan i(studi iputusan inomor iNomor i105/Pid.B/2022/PN iMet) idan iapakah iputusan iNomor iNomor i105/Pid.B/2022/PN iMet itelah imemenuhi itujuan ipemidanaan. Penelitian iini imenggunakan imetode ipendekatan iyang ibersifat iyuridis inormatif idan ididukung iyuridis iempiris imenggunakan ipendekatan iperaturan iperundang-undangan iyang iberlaku iserta istudi ikepustakaan idan ididukung iwawancara idengan inarasumber ipada ipenelitian iini iterdiri idari iHakim ipada iPengadilan iNegeri iMetro, iJaksa ipada iKejaksaan iNegeri iMetro, idan iDosen iBagian iHukum iPidana iFakultas iHukum iUniversitas iLampung. iPenelitian iini imenggunakan ianalisis idata isecara ideskriptif ikulitatif. Hasil iPenelitian idan ipembahasan imenunjukkan ibahwa idasar ipertimbangan imajelis ihakim idalam imenjatuhkan iputusan iNomor i105/Pid.B/2022/PN.Met idianalisis idari itiga iaspek iutama, iyaitu iyuridis, ifilosofis, idan isosiologis. iDari iaspek iyuridis, imajelis ihakim itelah imempertimbangkan isecara icermat idakwaan iyang idiajukan ioleh iPenuntut iUmum idengan isistem isubsideritas, iyakni idakwaan iprimair iPasal i351 iayat i(2) iKUHP itentang ipenganiayaan iyang imengakibatkan iluka iberat idan idakwaan isubsidair iPasal i351 iayat i(1) iKUHP itentang ipenganiayaan ibiasa. iBerdasarkan ifakta ipersidangan, imajelis ihakim imenilai ibahwa itusukan isenjata itajam iyang idilakukan iterdakwa itidak imengakibatkan iluka iberat isebagaimana idimaksud idalam iPasal i90 iKUHP, isehingga iunsur idakwaan iprimair itidak iterpenuhi. iOleh ikarena iitu, iterdakwa ihanya iterbukti isecara isah idan imeyakinkan imelakukan itindak ipidana ipenganiayaan isebagaimana idiatur idalam iPasal i351 iayat i(1) iKUHP, idengan iancaman ipidana ipenjara ipaling ilama i2 itahun i8 ibulan. iaspek ifilosofis, iputusan ipemidanaan iselama i1 itahun ipenjara iterhadap iterdakwa idinilai ibelum imencerminkan ikeadilan isubstantif ibagi ikorban imaupun imasyarakat. iVonis itersebut ibelum imempertimbangkan isecara utuh idampak ipsikologis idan ifisik iyang idialami ikorban iakibat iperbuatan iterdakwa. iPada iaspek isosiologis, iputusan iini itetap imemberikan manfaat isebagai ibentuk ipenegakan ihukum idan iupaya ipencegahan ikejahatan idi imasyarakat. iHukuman ipenjara iyang idijatuhkan ikepada iterdakwa idapat imemberikan iefek ijera, ibaik ikepada ipelaku imaupun imasyarakat iluas, iagar itidak imelakukan iperbuatan iserupa. iTujuan ipemidanaan idalam i105/Pid.B/2022/PN.Met idalam iKUHP iNasional itelah iterpenuhi idalam iaspek ipembalasan, ipencegakan, idan irestoratif. iNamun idalam iaspek irehabilitasi ibelum iterwujud idikarenakan ipemulihan ikerugian ipada ikorban idengan ipemidanaan idalam iputusan ibelum iberkeadilan idengan ikorban. Adapun isaran idalam ipenelitian iini, ikepada imajelis ihakim idalam imenjatuhkan iputusan iterutama iberkaitan idengan itindak ipidana ipenganiayaan idiharapkan imemperhatikan ipertimbangan isecara iyuridis, ifilosofis, idan isosiologis iterutama ipada iaspek ifilosofis iyang imewujudkan irasa ikeadilan ikepada imasyrakat idengan imengutamakan ihak-hak ikorban idalam ipemulihan ikerugianya. iPenulis iberharap ikepada ipenegak ihukum imenerapakan itujuan ipemidanaan idalam iKUHP iNasional isebagai ibentuk ipenyelesaian ikonflik idengan ipemulihan ihak ikorban itindak ipidana ipenganiayaan Kata ikunci i: iPenganiayaan, iPutusan iHakim, i itujuan ipemidanaan Assault iis ian iact ithat icauses ipain, iinjury, ior isuffering, iboth iphysically iand imentally, ito ianother iperson. iBased ion iDecision iNumber i105/Pid.B/2022/PN iMet, ithe ipunishment iimposed ion ithe idefendant iwas irelatively ilight, iand ithe irights iof ithe ivictim iof iassault iwere inot iadequately iconsidered ias ione iof ithe imain ifactors iin ithe ijudgment. iBased ion ithis, ithe iresearch iproblems iformulated iare: iwhat iare ithe ibasic iconsiderations iof ithe ijudge iin irendering ia iverdict iagainst ithe iperpetrator iof ithe icrime iof iassault i(case istudy iof iDecision iNumber i105/Pid.B/2022/PN iMet), iand iwhether ithe idecision ihas ifulfilled ithe iobjectives iof icriminal ipunishment. This iresearch iuses ia inormative ijuridical iapproach, isupported iby ian iempirical ijuridical iapproach, iutilizing istatutory iand iliterature istudies, ias iwell ias iinterviews iwith iresource ipersons iconsisting iof iJudges iat ithe iMetro iDistrict iCourt, iProsecutors iat ithe iMetro iDistrict iAttorney's iOffice, iand iLecturers iin iCriminal iLaw iat ithe iFaculty iof iLaw, iUniversity iof iLampung. iThe idata ianalysis iis iconducted idescriptively iand iqualitatively. The iresults iand idiscussion ishow ithat ithe ijudge's iconsiderations iin iDecision iNumber i105/Pid.B/2022/PN.Met iare ianalyzed ifrom ithree imain iaspects: ijuridical, iphilosophical, iand isociological. iFrom ithe ijuridical iaspect, ithe ipanel iof ijudges icarefully iconsidered ithe icharges isubmitted iby ithe iPublic iProsecutor iusing ia isubsidiarity isystem, inamely ithe iprimary icharge iof iArticle i351 iparagraph i(2) iof ithe iCriminal iCode iregarding iassault iresulting iin iserious iinjury, iand ithe isubsidiary icharge iof iArticle i351 iparagraph i(1) iof ithe iCriminal iCode iregarding iordinary iassault. iBased ion ithe ifacts iof ithe itrial, ithe ijudges ifound ithat ithe istabbing iwith ia isharp iweapon icommitted iby ithe idefendant idid inot iresult iin iserious iinjury ias idefined iin iArticle i90 iof ithe iCriminal iCode, iso ithe ielements iof ithe iprimary icharge iwere inot ifulfilled. iTherefore, ithe idefendant iwas ionly iproven ilegally iand iconvincingly ito ihave icommitted ithe icrime iof iassault ias iregulated iin iArticle i351 iparagraph i(1) iof ithe iCriminal iCode, iwhich icarries ia imaximum iprison isentence iof i2 iyears iand i8 imonths. iPhilosophically, ithe ione-year iimprisonment isentence iimposed ion ithe idefendant iis iconsidered inot ito ireflect isubstantive ijustice ifor ithe ivictim ior isociety. iThe iverdict idid inot ifully iconsider ithe ipsychological iand iphysical iimpact isuffered iby ithe ivictim ias ia From ithe isociological iaspect, ithis idecision istill iprovides ibenefits ias ia iform iof ilaw ienforcement iand icrime iprevention iin isociety. iThe iprison isentence iimposed ion ithe idefendant ican ihave ia ideterrent ieffect, iboth ifor ithe iperpetrator iand ithe iwider icommunity, ito iprevent isimilar iacts. iThe iobjectives iof ipunishment iin iDecision iNumber i105/Pid.B/2022/PN.Met iunder ithe iNational iCriminal iCode ihave ibeen ifulfilled iin iterms iof iretribution, ideterrence, iand irestorative iaspects. iHowever, ithe iaspect iof irehabilitation ihas inot ibeen irealized ibecause ithe irecovery iof ilosses ifor ithe ivictim ithrough ithe ipunishment iin ithe idecision iis inot iyet iequitable ifor ithe ivictim. The isuggestion iin ithis iresearch iis ithat ijudges, iin irendering idecisions, iespecially irelated ito icriminal iacts, iare iexpected ito iconsider ijuridical, iphilosophical, iand isociological iaspects, iparticularly ithe iphilosophical iaspect ithat irealizes ia isense iof ijustice ifor isociety iby iprioritizing ithe irights iof ivictims iin ithe irecovery iof itheir ilosses. iThe iauthor ihopes ithat ilaw ienforcement iofficers iwill iimplement ithe iobjectives iof ipunishment iin ithe iNational iCriminal iCode ias ia iform iof iconflict iresolution iby irestoring ithe irights iof ivictims iof icriminal iacts iof iassault. Keywords: iAssault, iJudge’s iDecision, iPurpose iof iPunishment
| Jenis Karya Akhir: | Skripsi |
|---|---|
| Subyek: | 300 Ilmu sosial > 340 Ilmu hukum 300 Ilmu sosial > 340 Ilmu hukum > 345 Hukum pidana |
| Program Studi: | FAKULTAS HUKUM (FH) > Prodi S1-Ilmu Hukum |
| Pengguna Deposit: | 2308289372 . Digilib |
| Date Deposited: | 12 Jun 2025 03:28 |
| Terakhir diubah: | 12 Jun 2025 03:28 |
| URI: | http://digilib.unila.ac.id/id/eprint/88338 |
Actions (login required)
 |
Lihat Karya Akhir |
