Criminal Accountability For Perpetrators Of Criminal Acts Hinders The Legal Process (obstruction Of Justice) In The Corruption Criminal Court (Study Of Supreme Court Decision No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009)

by ADMIN 199 views

Criminal Accountability for Perpetrators of Criminal Acts Hinders the Legal Process (Obstruction of Justice) in the Corruption Criminal Court (Study of Supreme Court Decision No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009)

Introduction

Corruption is a serious problem that affects various aspects of national life, and it requires proper and serious treatment. However, law enforcement efforts are often hampered by various obstacles, including the existence of an action known as "Obstruction of Justice" or obstructing the legal process. This article will discuss legal arrangements related to obstruction of justice, the factors that influence law enforcement, as well as the implementation of legal arrangements in the Supreme Court Decision No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009.

The Problem of Corruption and Obstruction of Justice

Corruption is a complex problem that affects various aspects of national life, including politics, economy, and society. It is a serious problem that requires proper and serious treatment. However, law enforcement efforts are often hampered by various obstacles, including the existence of an action known as "Obstruction of Justice" or obstructing the legal process. Obstruction of justice is a serious crime that can hinder the legal process and undermine the rule of law.

Legal Regulation of Obstruction of Justice

Obstruction of justice in Indonesia is regulated in the Criminal Code (KUHP), especially in Articles 216 to 225, as well as Article 231 and Article 233. Meanwhile, for criminal acts of corruption, the regulation is contained in Article 21 to Article 24 of Law Number 31 1999 amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Eradication of Corruption. Seeing examples of regulations in other countries, in the Netherlands this action is regulated in Article 184 Penal Code Dutch. In Hong Kong, the arrangement is contained in The Corrupt and Illegal Practice Ordinance (CIPO), while in Korea it is regulated in Article 136 to Article 144 Penal Code. In the United States, the regulation is stated in Article 1501 to Article 1521 from the United States Penal Code Model (18 USC Chapter 73).

Factors Affecting Law Enforcement

In this study, there are several factors that influence law enforcement related to the Obstruction of Justice. These factors include:

  1. Legal Substance: Existing legal provisions must be clear and easily understood by law enforcement and community, so that its application can run effectively.
  2. Law Enforcement: Integrity and Professionalism of Law Enforcement Officials have a big influence in law enforcement. Law enforcers who have the capacity and honesty will be better able to handle cases related to the Obstruction of Justice.
  3. Legal Culture: Legal culture of the community that supports law enforcement also contributes to the effectiveness of law enforcement. Public awareness of the importance of legal compliance is the first step to reduce the case of obstruction of justice.

Implementation of Law in MA Decision No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009

Analysis of MA Decision No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009 shows that the law stipulated in Article 21 of the Corruption Eradication Law has been well implemented. In this case, the perpetrators were subject to criminal sanctions in the form of prison for three years and a fine of Rp. 150,000,000,- (one hundred and fifty million rupiah) which if not paid will be replaced with imprisonment for one month. This decision reflects that law enforcement efforts in Indonesia, despite facing various challenges, can still be carried out firmly and just.

Conclusion

Having a legal process is an action that can hamper efforts to eradicate corruption. With a clear legal arrangement, as well as the support of law enforcement and good legal culture, law enforcement for obstruction of justice can be carried out effectively. MA Decision No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009 is an example that justice can be upheld even though there are many obstacles in the process. Therefore, it is important for all elements of society to support efforts to eradicate corruption and encourage just law enforcement in Indonesia.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis of the Supreme Court Decision No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009, the following recommendations can be made:

  1. Strengthening the Legal Arrangement: The legal arrangement related to obstruction of justice should be strengthened and clarified to ensure that it can be applied effectively.
  2. Improving Law Enforcement: Law enforcement officials should be trained and equipped to handle cases related to obstruction of justice effectively.
  3. Promoting Good Legal Culture: Public awareness of the importance of legal compliance should be promoted to reduce the case of obstruction of justice.

Future Research Directions

This study has provided insights into the legal arrangement and implementation of law in the Supreme Court Decision No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009. However, there are still many areas that require further research, including:

  1. Comparative Study: A comparative study of the legal arrangement and implementation of law in different countries can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of law enforcement for obstruction of justice.
  2. Empirical Study: An empirical study of the factors that influence law enforcement for obstruction of justice can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of law enforcement.
  3. Policy Analysis: A policy analysis of the legal arrangement and implementation of law in the Supreme Court Decision No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009 can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of law enforcement for obstruction of justice.
    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Criminal Accountability for Perpetrators of Criminal Acts Hinders the Legal Process (Obstruction of Justice) in the Corruption Criminal Court (Study of Supreme Court Decision No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009)

Q1: What is Obstruction of Justice?

A1: Obstruction of justice is a serious crime that can hinder the legal process and undermine the rule of law. It involves actions that intentionally interfere with the administration of justice, such as tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or bribing officials.

Q2: What are the consequences of Obstruction of Justice?

A2: The consequences of obstruction of justice can be severe, including imprisonment, fines, and damage to one's reputation. In addition, obstruction of justice can also undermine the integrity of the legal system and erode public trust in the justice system.

Q3: What are the factors that influence law enforcement for Obstruction of Justice?

A3: The factors that influence law enforcement for obstruction of justice include:

  1. Legal Substance: Existing legal provisions must be clear and easily understood by law enforcement and community, so that its application can run effectively.
  2. Law Enforcement: Integrity and Professionalism of Law Enforcement Officials have a big influence in law enforcement. Law enforcers who have the capacity and honesty will be better able to handle cases related to the Obstruction of Justice.
  3. Legal Culture: Legal culture of the community that supports law enforcement also contributes to the effectiveness of law enforcement. Public awareness of the importance of legal compliance is the first step to reduce the case of obstruction of justice.

Q4: What is the role of the Supreme Court in enforcing the law against Obstruction of Justice?

A4: The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in enforcing the law against obstruction of justice. The Supreme Court has the power to review and interpret the law, as well as to impose sanctions on individuals who commit obstruction of justice. In the case of Supreme Court Decision No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009, the Supreme Court imposed a prison sentence of three years and a fine of Rp. 150,000,000,- (one hundred and fifty million rupiah) on the perpetrators.

Q5: How can the public support efforts to eradicate corruption and encourage just law enforcement?

A5: The public can support efforts to eradicate corruption and encourage just law enforcement by:

  1. Promoting Good Legal Culture: Public awareness of the importance of legal compliance should be promoted to reduce the case of obstruction of justice.
  2. Supporting Law Enforcement: The public should support law enforcement officials who are working to enforce the law against corruption and obstruction of justice.
  3. Reporting Corruption: The public should report any instances of corruption or obstruction of justice to the authorities.

Q6: What are the implications of the Supreme Court Decision No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009 for the fight against corruption?

A6: The Supreme Court Decision No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009 has significant implications for the fight against corruption. The decision demonstrates that the Supreme Court is committed to enforcing the law against corruption and obstruction of justice, and that it will impose severe sanctions on individuals who commit these crimes. The decision also sends a strong message to the public that corruption and obstruction of justice will not be tolerated.

Q7: What are the future directions for research on Obstruction of Justice?

A7: Future research directions on obstruction of justice include:

  1. Comparative Study: A comparative study of the legal arrangement and implementation of law in different countries can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of law enforcement for obstruction of justice.
  2. Empirical Study: An empirical study of the factors that influence law enforcement for obstruction of justice can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of law enforcement.
  3. Policy Analysis: A policy analysis of the legal arrangement and implementation of law in the Supreme Court Decision No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009 can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of law enforcement for obstruction of justice.