Paradigma Keadilan Restoratif Dalam Putusan Hakim
Abstract
Discriminatory treatments of judges have dominated the reports to the Judicial Commission. Injustice, in fact, is one of the lowest value attitudes of judges according to Judicial Commission assessment results. Indeed, showing justice is not easy for judges but to date in its development appears restorative justice that provides justice for all parties. Its future existence and response are interesting to be criticized. Based on this, the purpose of this study is to examine the paradigm of restorative justice in making legal decisions of judges on legal cases and the construction of the judges’ decisions which are paradigmatic in Restorative Justice. This research uses normative legal research with four types of approaches, which are case approach, legislative approach, conceptual approach, historical approach, and comparative approach. The results of the study show the restorative justice paradigm prioritizing restoration or amelioration will seek to provide justice, certainty and usefulness of the law, as well as realize progressive and responsive laws, and this makes it appropriate to be used as a judge’s paradigm in deciding a case. In constructing restorative justice-based judges’ decisions, judges do only make decisions based on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), but substantially, through the restorative justice paradigm the judges will consider justice for all parties (victims, perpetrators of crime, and the public). Judges do not make decisions based on retributive or retaliation goals but hold on to the values, concepts, principles, and basics of restorative justice prioritizing restoration or amelioration of the parties, meeting the needs of the parties, and prioritizing expediency.
Discriminatory treatments of judges have dominated the reports to the Judicial Commission. Injustice, in fact, is one of the lowest value attitudes of judges according to Judicial Commission assessment results. Indeed, showing justice is not easy for judges but to date in its development appears restorative justice that provides justice for all parties. Its future existence and response are interesting to be criticized. Based on this, the purpose of this study is to examine the paradigm of restorative justice in making legal decisions of judges on legal cases and the construction of the judges’ decisions which are paradigmatic in Restorative Justice. This research uses normative legal research with four types of approaches, which are case approach, legislative approach, conceptual approach, historical approach, and comparative approach. The results of the study show the restorative justice paradigm prioritizing restoration or amelioration will seek to provide justice, certainty and usefulness of the law, as well as realize progressive and responsive laws, and this makes it appropriate to be used as a judge’s paradigm in deciding a case. In constructing restorative justice-based judges’ decisions, judges do only make decisions based on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), but substantially, through the restorative justice paradigm the judges will consider justice for all parties (victims, perpetrators of crime, and the public). Judges do not make decisions based on retributive or retaliation goals but hold on to the values, concepts, principles, and basics of restorative justice prioritizing restoration or amelioration of the parties, meeting the needs of the parties, and prioritizing expediency.
Downloads
References
Asnawi, M. Natsir. (2014). Hermeneutika Putusan Hakim. Yogyakarta: UII Press.
Tridiatno, Yoachim Agus. (2015). Keadilan Restoratif. Yogyakarta: Cahaya Atma Pustaka.
Syamsudin, M. (2012), Konstruksi Baru Budaya Hukum Hakim. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Grup.
Jurnal
Arief, H., & Ambarsari, N. (2018). Penerapan Prinsip Restorative Justice Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Indonesia. Al-Adl: Jurnal Hukum, 10(2). doi: 10.31602/al-adl.v10i2.1362.
Candra, S. (2013). Restorative Justice: Suatu Tinjauan Terhadap Pembaharuan Hukum Pidana di Indonesia. Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional, 2(2).
Haryadi, L., & Suteki, S. (2017). Implementasi Nilai Keadilan Sosial Oleh Hakim Dalam Perkara Lanjar Sriyanto dari Perspektif Pancasila dan Kode Etik Profesi Hakim. Law Reform, 13(2), 165. doi: 10.14710/lr.v13i2.16153.
Istiqamah, D. T. (2018). Analisis Nilai Keadilan Restoratif Pada Penerapan Hukum Adat di Indonesia. Veritas et Justitia, 4(1). doi: 10.25123/vej.2914.
Laksana, A. W. (2017). Keadilan Restoratif Dalam Penyelesaian Perkara Anak yang Berhadapan Dengan Hukun Dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak. Jurnal Pembaharuan Hukum, 4(1), 58. doi: 10.26532/jph.v4i1.1644.
Nurhafifah, N., & Rahmiati, R. (2015). Pertimbangan Hakim dalam Penjatuhan Pidana Terkait Hal yang Memberatkan dan Meringankan Putusan. Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 17(2).
Prayitno, Kuat Puji. (2012). Restorative Justice untuk Peradilan di Indonesia (Perspektif Yuridis Filosofis dalam Penegakan Hukum In Concreto. Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, 12 (3), 412. doi: 10.20884/1.jdh.2012.12.
Septianita, H. (2018). Keadilan Restoratif Dalam Putusan Pidana Anak. Jurnal Yudisial, 11(2), 205. doi: 10.29123/jy.v11i2.290.
Sodiqin, A. (2015). Restorative Justice dalam Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan: Perspektif Hukum Pidana Indonesia dan Hukum Pidana Islam. Asy-Syir'ah: Jurnal Ilmu Syari'ah dan Hukum, 49(1), 64. doi: 10.30656/ajudikasi.v2i1.575.
Sosiawan, U. M. (2017). Perspektif Restorative Justice Sebagai Wujud Perlindungan Anak Yang Berhadapan Dengan Hukum (Perspective of Restorative Justice as a Children Protection Against the Law). Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, 16(4), 426. doi: 10.30641/dejure.2016.
Sukardi, S. (2016). Eksistensi Konsep Restorative Justice Dalam Sistem Hukum Pidana di Indonesia. Legal Pluralism: Journal of Law Science, 6(1).
Sudiarawan, K. A., Tanaya, P. E., & Hermanto, B. (2020). Discover the Legal Concept in the Sociological Study. Substantive Justice International Journal of Law, 3(1), 94-108.
Sunaryo, S., & Purnamawati, S. A. (2019). Paradigma Hukum Yang Benar dan Hukum yang Baik (Perspektif Desain Putusan Hakim Perkara Korupsi di Indonesia). Hukum Pidana dan Pembangunan Hukum, 1(2).
Syamsudin, M. (2012), Konstruksi Baru Budaya Hukum Hakim, Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Grup.
Yulia, R. (2012). Penerapan Keadilan Restoratif Dalam Putusan Hakim: Upaya Penyelesaian Konflik Melalui Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Jurnal Yudisial, 5(2), 226. doi: 10.29123/jy.v5i2.155.
Online/World Wide Web:
Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia. KY Tekankan Hakim Harus Berintegritas dan Adil. Retrieved from https://www.komisiyudisial.go.id/frontend/news_detail/1084/ky-tekankan-hakim-harus-berintegritas-dan-adil,diakses 2 Juni 2020.
Peraturan Perundang-Undangan
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP).
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 Tentang Hukum Acara Pidana (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1982 Nomor 76; Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 3209).
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 11 tahun 2012 tentang Sistem Peradilan Anak (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2012 Nomor 153; Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 5332).
Putusan Pengadilan
Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Utara Nomor: 46/Pid/UT/781/ WAN tanggal 17 Juni 1978, dengan hakim ketua sidang: Bismar Siregar.
Putusan Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor: 107/PK/Pid/2006 tanggal 21 November 2007 dengan hakim ketua sidang: H. Parman Soeparman.
Putusan Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor: 107/PK/Pid/2006 tanggal 21 November 2007 dengan hakim ketua sidang: H. Parman Soeparman.
Putusan Mahkamah Agung No.1600 K/Pid/2009 tanggal 24 November 2009, dengan hakim ketua Dr. Harifin A. Tumpa,SH.MH.
Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Nomor 46/Pid.B/2014/PN.Mrb Marabahan tanggal 1 Maret 2014, dengan hakim ketua: Roedy Suharso, S.H, M.H.
Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Singaraja Bali, Nomor : 30/Pid.Sus/2015/PN.Sgr, tanggal 1 April 2015 dengan hakim ketua sidang: Haruno Patriadi, SH., MH.
