Ilham Efendi, Ridho Mubarak

Analisis Penerapan Sanksi Pidana Terhadap Tindak Pidana Perburuan Satwa Liar di Kawasan Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser

Introduction

Analisis penerapan sanksi pidana terhadap tindak pidana perburuan satwa liar di kawasan taman nasional gunung leuser . Analisis sanksi pidana perburuan satwa liar dilindungi di Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser. Mengkaji peraturan UU Konservasi dan pertimbangan hakim dalam putusan PN Medan (327/Pid.B/LH/2023) mengenai kasus perburuan.

Abstract

Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui peraturan terhadap tindak pidana perburuan satwa liar yang dilindungi berdasarkan peraturan perundang – undangan di Indonesia serta mengetahui pertimbangan hakim dalam menerapkan sanksi pidana terhadap tindak pidana perburuan satwa liar pada putusan nomor 327/Pid.B/LH/2023/Pn Medan Masalah difokuskan pada sanksi pidana terhadap perburuan satwa liar di Gunung Leuser. Data-data dikumpulkan melalui data primer dan data sekunder dan dianalisis secara kualitatif.  Kajian ini menyimpulkan bahwa pengaturan hukum mengenai tindak pidana perburuan satwa liar yang dilindungi pada pokok nya diatur dalam Undang – undang nomor 5 Tahun 1990 tentang Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam dan Ekosistemnya serta pertimbangan hakim dalam menerapakan sanksi pidana yaitu menerapkan segala unsur – unsur tindak pidana apakah sudah memenuhi untuk dianggap melakukan tindak pidana. Hakim berpendapat bahwa yang dilakukan terdakwa adalah unsur kelalaian sebab pemasangan jerat dilakukan untuk menangkap babi hutan bukan hewan yang dilindungi Undang – undang. Kemudian sebab selama proses peradilan terdakwa koperatif dan tanggap melaporkan hewan dilindungi telah terjerat di kebun, hakim memberikan putusan empat bulan penjara dan denda lima puluh ribu juta rupiah, lebih ringan daripada tuntutan awal.

Review

The paper, "Analisis Penerapan Sanksi Pidana Terhadap Tindak Pidana Perburuan Satwa Liar di Kawasan Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser," addresses a highly pertinent issue in environmental law and conservation: the judicial application of criminal sanctions for wildlife poaching. The study clearly articulates its objectives, aiming to delineate the legal framework governing protected wildlife poaching in Indonesia and to scrutinize the judicial reasoning in a specific case, Putusan Nomor 327/Pid.B/LH/2023/Pn Medan. By focusing on the Gunung Leuser National Park, a critical biodiversity hotspot, the research grounds its legal analysis in a context of significant ecological importance, enhancing its practical relevance. The qualitative approach, utilizing both primary and secondary data, appears appropriate for dissecting legal texts and judicial decisions. The core findings highlight that Indonesia's primary legislation for wildlife conservation is Law No. 5 of 1990. More significantly, the paper delves into the judge's rationale for sentencing in the identified case. The court's determination that the defendant's actions constituted "negligence" rather than intent, based on the claim of setting snares for wild boars and not protected animals, presents a crucial point of discussion. While the defendant's cooperativeness and prompt reporting of the protected animal being snared were considered mitigating factors, leading to a lighter sentence of four months imprisonment and a relatively small fine, this finding of negligence raises questions about the interpretation of *mens rea* in environmental crimes. The abstract suggests that the judge focused strictly on whether the elements of a criminal act were met, but the distinction between direct intent and indirect intent (or even strict liability in some conservation laws) often plays a significant role in deterring actions that *could* harm protected species, irrespective of the initial target. This study offers valuable insights into the complexities of enforcing wildlife protection laws and the judicial discretion involved in sentencing. The detailed examination of one specific case provides a useful micro-level perspective on how legal principles translate into practical judgments, especially concerning the critical role of intent versus negligence. However, the reliance on a single case study, while providing depth, inherently limits the generalizability of its findings across the broader Indonesian judicial landscape concerning wildlife crimes. Future research could expand on this by analyzing a larger sample of court decisions to identify patterns, inconsistencies, or regional variations in sentencing. Furthermore, exploring the effectiveness of such lighter sentences in achieving conservation goals, and whether the current legal framework adequately addresses scenarios of unintended harm to protected species, would be beneficial for policy makers and legal practitioners aiming to strengthen wildlife protection efforts in Indonesia.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.