Police Discretion Liability in the Function of Criminal Law Enforcement (original) (raw)

2020, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

Abstract

Police discretion in potentially abused, injustice, corruptive actions are things that cannot be hidden anymore. Pretrial as a means of control and supervision in its practice has limitations. In government discretion, the State Administration Court has received to examine and test it as a form of liability, but on the contrary it is not so in police discretion. That means, police discretion in the function of criminal law enforcement cannot be examined and/or tested that is used without any liability. The research method used was normative legal research with statutory, conceptual, historical, and analytical approaches using primary, secondary, and tertiary legal material. 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 pseudoadministrative 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.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (24)

  1. M. Ulfah, A. Safrina, and W. M. H. Susilowati, "Penghentian Penyidikan: Tinjauan Hukum Administrasi Dan Hukum Acara Pidana," Mimb. Huk. -Fak. Huk. Univ. Gadjah Mada, 2017.
  2. A. Tabah, Bureaucracy Policing (Pemolisian Birokrasi). Klaten: CV. Sahabat, 2010.
  3. Yopie Morya Immanuel Patiro, Diskresi Pejabat Publik dan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Bandung: CV. Keni Media, 2011.
  4. A. Fendri, "Kebebasan Bertindak Pemerintah (Diskresi) Sebagai Perwujudan Nilai-Nilai Moral Dan Etika," J. Ilmu Huk. Riau, 2015.
  5. S. . Marbun and M. Mahfud, Pokok-Pokok Hukum Administrasi Negara. Yogyakarta: Liberty, 1987.
  6. J. H. Arsyad, Korupsi Dalam Perspektif Hukum Administrasi Negara. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2014.
  7. N. Sinamo, Hukum Administrasi Negara. Jakarta: Jala Permata Aksara, 2010.
  8. L. M. P. Pangaribuan, Hukum Acara Pidana: Surat Resmi Advokat di Pengadilan. Praperadilan, Eksepsi, Pledoi, Duplik, Memori Banding, Kasasi dan Peninjauan Kembali. Jakarta: Papas Sinar Sinanti, 2013.
  9. A. Sutadi, G. A. Wulan, H. Susetyo, and S. B. Harahap, Diskresi Kepolisian: Dalam Tinjauan Hukum dan Implementasinya di Lapangan. Jakarta: Komlsi Kepoljslan NASIONAL, 2013.
  10. Sidharta and J. Rizal, Pendulum Antinomi Hukum: Antologi 70 Tahun Valerine J. L. Kriekhoff. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing, 2014.
  11. T. R. R. Nitibaskara, Ketika Kejahatan Berdaulat. Jakarta: Peradaban, 2001.
  12. S. W. Edi, Praperadilan di Indonesia: Teori, Sejarah, danPraktiknya. Jakarta: Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, 2014.
  13. J. Ibrahim, "Teori dan Metode Penelitian Hukum Normatif," Bayu Media, Malang, 2006.
  14. P. M. Marzuki, Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2011.
  15. K. Carty, Guidebook on Democratic Policing. 2008.
  16. A. F. Susanto, "Mitos Peradilan Bersih (Ketika Etika Mulai Tergerus dan Menjadi Barang Langka)," in Problematika Hukum dan Peradilan, Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia, 2014, p. 377.
  17. Bachtiar, Politik Hukum Konstitusi; Pertanggungjawaban Konstitusional Presiden. Yogyakarta: Suluh Media, 2018.
  18. J. Asshiddiqie and M. A. Safa'at, Teori Hans Kelsen Tentang Hukum. Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi RI, 2006.
  19. R. Satijipto, Ilmu Hukum. 2014.
  20. H. Ridwan, Hukum Administrasi Negara. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2013.
  21. S. Soemantri, Prosedur dan Sistem Perubahan Konstitusi. Bandung: Alumni, 1987.
  22. A. Efendi and F. Poernomo, Hukum Administrasi. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2017.
  23. S. Usman, Etika dan Tanggung Jawab Profesi Hukum di Indonesia. Jakarta: Gaya Media Pratama, 2008.
  24. K. D. Darumurti, Diskresi: Kajian Teori Hukum. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing, 2016.