Liana Juanita

PENERAPAN PASAL 2 AYAT (1) JO PASAL 10 UNDANG-UNDANG RI NOMOR 21 TAHUN 2007 TENTANG PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA PERDAGANGAN ORANG (Studi Putusan Nomor 89Pid.Sus2022PN Lsm)

Introduction

Penerapan pasal 2 ayat (1) jo pasal 10 undang-undang ri nomor 21 tahun 2007 tentang pemberantasan tindak pidana perdagangan orang (studi putusan nomor 89pid.sus2022pn lsm). Menganalisis penerapan Pasal 2 Ayat (1) jo Pasal 10 UU No. 21/2007 tentang Pemberantasan TPPO pada Putusan PN Lsm. Mengkaji pertimbangan hakim & kesesuaian hukuman dengan prinsip legalitas.

Abstract

PENERAPAN PASAL 2 AYAT (1) JO PASAL 10 UNDANG-UNDANG RI NOMOR 21 TAHUN 2007 TENTANG PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA PERDAGANGAN ORANG (Studi Putusan Nomor 89/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Lsm)   LIANA JUANITA D1A019322 APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 2 PARAGRAPH (1) JO ARTICLE 10 OF THE LAW OF THE RI NUMBER 21 OF 2007 CONCERNING ERADICATION OF THE CRIMINAL ACT OF TRAFFICKING IN PEOPLE (Study Decision Number 89/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Lsm) ABSTRACT             The purpose of this research is to find out and analyze the judge's considerations in imposing criminal sanctions on perpetrators of criminal acts who assist or attempt to carry out human trafficking in decision Number 89/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Lsm and the application of Article 2 Paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 10 of the Law Republic of Indonesia Number 21 of 2007 concerning Eradication of the Crime of Human Trafficking in decision Number 89/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Lsm. This research is normative legal research using the statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The results of the study can be concluded that (1) the judge's consideration in decision Number 89/Pid.Sus/202/PN Lsm was sufficient to impose a crime on the defendant, starting from the statements of the witnesses, the defendant's statement, and the evidence presented at the trial, making it easier for judges to consider the right decision. (2) the application of the crime against the defendant is not appropriate if it refers to the Principle of Legality because the sentence imposed is below the particular minimum limit of the Law on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Trafficking in Persons and the judge's decision does not reflect legal certainty. Keywords: human trafficking, application of the article, judge's consideration.  

Review

This paper, titled "APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 2 PARAGRAPH (1) JO ARTICLE 10 OF THE LAW OF THE RI NUMBER 21 OF 2007 CONCERNING ERADICATION OF THE CRIMINAL ACT OF TRAFFICKING IN PEOPLE (Study Decision Number 89/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Lsm)", addresses a highly pertinent and critical issue within Indonesian legal scholarship: the practical application of anti-human trafficking legislation. The research clearly states its purpose to analyze the judge's considerations in a specific case and the appropriateness of applying the relevant articles. Utilizing a normative legal research approach with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, the study effectively grounds itself in established legal methodologies, making it a relevant contribution to understanding judicial practice in this complex area. The study's findings are particularly illuminating. While acknowledging that the judge's considerations were sufficient in establishing guilt based on the evidence, the research critically points out a significant discrepancy in the sentencing. The conclusion that the imposed sentence was below the specific minimum limit mandated by the Law on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Trafficking in Persons highlights a crucial concern regarding the "Principle of Legality" and judicial adherence to statutory requirements. This finding directly challenges the notion of legal certainty in practice, providing a sharp contrast between theoretical legal provisions and their on-the-ground implementation. Such an analysis is vital for identifying potential gaps or inconsistencies in the judicial system's response to severe crimes like human trafficking. While the paper offers valuable insights, its focus on a single case study, though providing depth, naturally limits the generalizability of its findings. Future research could benefit from a comparative analysis of multiple similar cases to identify broader patterns or reasons behind judicial deviations from minimum sentencing guidelines. Exploring the specific socio-legal or procedural factors that might have influenced the judge's decision in this particular case would also enrich the understanding. Nevertheless, this study makes a significant contribution by exposing a practical challenge in the enforcement of human trafficking laws and serves as an important call for greater scrutiny of judicial decisions to uphold legal certainty and the robust application of critical legislation.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.