Tinjauan Yuridis Asas Pemaafan Hakim dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 Tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62383/demokrasi.v3i1.1525Keywords:
Judge's Pardon Decision, Justice, Legal Certainty, Legal Pardon, Reform Criminal CodeAbstract
The Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) regulates three types of decisions that may be rendered by judges in criminal proceedings. A legal issue arises in situations where a defendant is proven guilty lawfully and convincingly, yet the imposition of a criminal punishment would create a conflict between legal certainty and legal justice. Article 54 paragraph (2) of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP) introduces a new principle known as Rechtelijk Pardon, or what is referred to as a judicial pardon ruling. This provision offers guidelines for sentencing by considering various factors related to justice and humanity. Following the reform of the Criminal Code through the inclusion of this provision, there emerges a need to reform the Criminal Procedure Code as well, specifically by incorporating the judicial pardon decision into Article 191 of KUHAP. This research employs a normative legal research method using primary and secondary data sources. The research approach utilizes statutory and conceptual approaches. The results of the study emphasize the importance of adding the judicial pardon decision to Article 191 of KUHAP so that the reform of criminal law in Indonesia maintains coherence between substantive and procedural legal reforms, thereby creating a criminal justice system that is more just, humane, and responsive to societal needs.
Downloads
References
Alam, A. S. (2010). Pengantar kriminologi. Refleksi.
Arief, B. N. (1996). Kebijakan legislatif dalam penanggulangan kejahatan dengan pidana penjara. Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
Arief, B. N. (2011). Bunga rampai kebijakan hukum pidana. Fajar Interpratama.
Bonger, W. A. (1995). Pengantar tentang kriminologi pembangunan. Ghalia Indonesia.
Darwan, M. (1997). Hukum anak Indonesia. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Ibrahim, J. (2006). Teori dan metodologi penelitian hukum normatif. Bayumedia Publishing.
Ilyas, A. S. A., & Amir. (2018). Kriminologi: Suatu pengantar (1st ed.). Prenadamedia Group.
Keizer, N., & Schaffmeister, D. (1990). Beberapa catatan tentang rancangan permulaan 1998 Buku I KUHP baru Indonesia. Driebergen/Valkenburg.
Kholiq, E., Arief, B. N., & Soponyono. (2015). Pidana penjara terbatas: Sebuah gagasan dan reorientasi terhadap kebijakan formulasi jenis sanksi hukum pidana di Indonesia. Law Reform, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v11i1.15759
Legal Information Institute. (2025, June 30). Actus reus. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/actus_reus
Marguery, A. T. P. (2008). Unity and diversity of the public prosecutor services in Europe: A study of the Czech, Dutch, French, and Polish system (Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen).
Mauliza, M., et al. (2022). Putusan bebas atas tuntutan tindak pidana penghinaan dan/atau pencemaran nama baik melalui media sosial. Locus Journal of Academic Literature Review, 1(5), 341–348. https://doi.org/10.56128/ljoalr.v1i6.85
Rahman, A. (2021). Metodologi penelitian hukum. RajaGrafindo Persada.
Rawls, J. (2011). Teori keadilan (U. Fauzan & H. Prasetyo, Trans.). Pustaka Pelajar. (Karya asli diterbitkan 1971)
Wikipedia contributors. (2025, June 30). Mens rea. Wikipedia. https://id.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Demokrasi: Jurnal Riset Ilmu Hukum, Sosial dan Politik

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


