Fungsi Penegakan Hukum Pidana Terkait Tanggungjawab Diskresi Kepolisian
Abstract
This study aims to see that police discretion has the potential to be abused, in justice, acts of corruption are things that cannot be hidden anymore. Pretrial as a means of control and supervision in its implementation has limitations. Based on the result, police discretion liability in the function of criminal law enforcement in Law on Police and Criminal Procedural Code was not governed expressly. Therefore, the concept of police discretion must obtain clearer, more measured, and objective interpretation and explanation so that the legitimization and operational are application and in line with the conception of legal state, law enforcement, and law liability. The absence of mechanism and examining and/or testing institution could not be maintained anymore, so had to be open to the obligation to account for it, either by pseudo-administrative trial, pure administrative trial, or both, with internal liability or external liability. Besides that, the aspect of legitimization and operational of police discretion was not applicable, limited by and in the sense within the scope of its legality principle and specification, and could not be used in the function of criminal law enforcement except police investigator discretion as a form of special discretion and constituted a specification of police discretion, realized in free discretion and bound discretion according to the Criminal Procedural Code.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Arsyad, J. H. (2014) Korupsi Dalam Perspektif Hukum Administrasi Negara. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Asshiddiqie, J. dan Safa’at, M. A. (2006) Teori Hans Kelsen Tentang Hukum. Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi RI.
Bachtiar, (2018) Politik Hukum Konstitusi; Pertanggungjawaban Konstitusional Presiden. Yogyakarta: Suluh Media.
Carty, K. (2008). Guidebook on democratic policing by the Senior Police Adviser to the OSCE Secretary General. OSCE.
Darumurti, K. D. (2016) Diskresi: Kajian Teori Hukum. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing.
Edi, S. W. (2014) Praperadilan di Indonesia: Teori, Sejarah, danPraktiknya. Jakarta: Institute for Criminal Justice Reform.
Efendi A. dan Poernomo, F. (2017) Hukum Administrasi. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Fendri, A. (2015) “Kebebasan Bertindak Pemerintah (Diskresi) Sebagai Perwujudan Nilai-Nilai Moral Dan Etika,” J. Ilmu Huk. Riau.
Ibrahim, J. (2006) “Teori dan Metode Penelitian Hukum Normatif,” Malang: Bayu Media.
Marbun, S. dan Mahfud, M. (1987) Pokok-Pokok Hukum Administrasi Negara. Yogyakarta: Liberty.
Marzuki, P. M. (2011) Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Nitibaskara, T. R. R. (2001) Ketika Kejahatan Berdaulat. Jakarta: Peradaban.
Pangaribuan, L. M. P. (2013) Hukum Acara Pidana: Surat Resmi Advokat di Pengadilan. Praperadilan, Eksepsi, Pledoi, Duplik, Memori Banding, Kasasi dan Peninjauan Kembali. Jakarta: Papas Sinar Sinanti.
Patiro, Yopie Morya Immanuel (2011) Diskresi Pejabat Publik dan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Bandung: CV. Keni Media.
Ridwan, H. (2013) Hukum Administrasi Negara. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Satijipto, R. (2014) Ilmu Hukum. Bandung: PT. Citra Aditya.
Sidharta dan J. Rizal, (2014) Pendulum Antinomi Hukum: Antologi 70 Tahun Valerine J. L. Kriekhoff. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing.
Sinamo, N. (2010) Hukum Administrasi Negara. Jakarta: Jala Permata Aksara.
Soemantri, S. (1987) Prosedur dan Sistem Perubahan Konstitusi. Bandung: Alumni.
Susanto, A. F. (2014) “Mitos Peradilan Bersih (Ketika Etika Mulai Tergerus dan Menjadi Barang Langka),” in Problematika Hukum dan Peradilan, Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia.
Sutadi, A. G., A. Wulan, H. Susetyo, dan S. B. Harahap, (2013) Diskresi Kepolisian: Dalam Tinjauan Hukum dan Implementasinya di Lapangan. Jakarta: Komlsi Kepoljslan NASIONAL.
Tabah, (2010). A. Bureaucracy Policing (Pemolisian Birokrasi). Klaten: CV. Sahabat.
Ulfah, M., Safrina, A. and W. M. H. Susilowati, (2017) “Penghentian Penyidikan: Tinjauan Hukum Administrasi Dan Hukum Acara Pidana,” Mimb. Huk. - Fak. Huk. Univ. Gadjah Mada.
Usman, S. (2008) Etika dan Tanggung Jawab Profesi Hukum di Indonesia. Jakarta: Gaya Media Pratama.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31479/jphl.v14i1.223
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Jurnal Penelitian Hukum Legalitas is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.