Analisis Disparitas Putusan Hakim Dalam Penjatuhan Pidana Terhadap Tindak Pidana Perjudian

HM. Siregar

Abstract


According to the Kartini Kartono at her book âSocial Patologyâ (2005), Criminal Law used to solve social problems, expecially to crime prevention, as one of the society desease and social patology form like gambling case. Gambling at the history process from generation to generation, it is not easy to be prevented, although the reality showed that result from gambling by goverment can be used for development activities. Article 1 Undang- undang No 7 Tahun 1974 about Penertiban Perjudian, regarded as reasonable and legitimate, but very threaten the social society. Legal doctrine ruled that âRes Judicate Pro Veritate Hebeturâ it means that everything is decided by the judge was correct, although at the reality it is not true until it binding and cannot be cancelled by other court. As court function, behavior of law enforcement, expecially Integrated Justice System and more expecially is judge behavior, became one of the main barometer for a state law to know how affectuation law and legislation.Reality, at the court, judge can be decided criminal offense according to the gambling action  but different (disparitas) although at the same case.

Keywords


Disparitas; Criminal Offense; Gambling.

Full Text:

PDF

References


A. BUKU

Abidin, A.Z, Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana, Alumni Bandung, 1987.

Barda Nawawi Arief, Beberapa Aspek kebijakan Penegakan dan pengembangan Hukum Pidana, Citra Aditya Bakti,Bandung, 1998.

Bambang Poernomo, Azaz-Azaz Hukum Pidana, Dali Mutiara, Tafsir KUHP, Bintang Indonesia, Jakarta, 1991.

Herbert L. Parker, Toward an Integrated Theory oc Criminal Punishme From The Limits of The Criminal Sanctions, Stanford California Stanford University Press, 1968.

Kartini Kartono, Patologi Sosial, Cet.1, Jilid 1, Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta,2005.

Lilik Mulyadi, Hukum Acara Pidana suatu tinjauan khusus terhadap suatu dakwaan,eksepsi dan putusan pengadilan,PT.Citra Aditya Bhakti Bandung, 1996.

Muladi, ?Kapita Selekta Sitem Peradilan Pidana?, Badan Penerbit UNDIP, Semarang,1995.

M.Anwar, HAK, Hukum Pidana Bagian Khusus, (KUHP Buku II), Alumni, Bandung,1979.

M.Yahya Harahap, Permasalahanpermasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP Edisi 2 Cet.5, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta, 2003.

Moelyatno, Azaz-azaz Hukum Pidana, Bintang Indonesia, Jakarta, 1978.

Saparinah Sadli, dalam Muladi dan Barda Nawawi Arief, Teori-teori dan Kebijakan Pidana, Cet.II, Alumni,Bandung, 1998.

Soerjono Soekamto, Pengantar Penelitian Hukum, UI Press, Jakarta, 2010.

B. UNDANG-UNDANG DAN PERATURAN LAINNYA.

Undang-Undang Dasar Tahun 1945 Hasil Amandemen

Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1946 tentang pemberlakuan Kitab Undang-

Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) diseluruh Indonesia.

Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP).

Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2009 tentang Perubahan Kedua atas Undang

Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2004 tentang Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia.

Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman Republik Indonesia.

Undang-Undang Nomor 49 Tahun 2009 tentang Perubahan Kedua atas Undang.

Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 1985 tentang Pelaksanan KUHAP.

C. SUMBER LAINNYA

Pusat Bahasa, Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, Gramedia, Jakarta,2008.

John M.Echlos, Kamus Inggris Indonesia- Indonesia Inggris, Gramedia,Jakarta,2010.

R.Subekti, Kamus Hukum, Paradnya, Jakarta, 2003.

Siregar, HM.,Analisis Disparitas Putusan Hakim Dalam Penjatuhan Pidana Terhadap Tindak Pidana Perjudian, Universitas Bandar Lampung,2014


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.