http://repository.unigal.ac.id:8080/handle/123456789/10 2026-10-02T22:00:28Z 2026-10-02T22:00:28Z NUGRAHA, MUCHLIS http://repository.unigal.ac.id:8080/handle/123456789/10652 2026-09-22T19:15:18Z 2026-09-21T00:00:00Z

LEGALISASI PENGGUNAAN GANJA UNTUK MEDIS DALAM UPAYA PEMBAHARUAN HUKUM KESEHATAN NASIONAL (Studi Kasus Putusan Perkara Nomor 111/PID.SUS/2017/PN.SAG) NUGRAHA, MUCHLIS Medical Marijuana Legalisation, National Health Law

2026-09-21T00:00:00Z SAFARINA, DIANI http://repository.unigal.ac.id:8080/handle/123456789/10651 2026-09-22T12:19:18Z 2026-09-21T00:00:00Z

ANALISIS HUKUM ATAS MENSREA DALAM PEMBUKTIAN TINDAK PIDANA (Studi Kasus Perkara Putusan No 34/Pid.Sus-TPK/2025/PN Jkt.Pst Putusan Tom Lembong) SAFARINA, DIANI ABSTRACT LEGAL ANALYSIS OF MENS REA IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION (Case Study of Decision No. 34/Pid.Sus-TPK/2025/PN Jkt.Pst Decision Tom Lembong) By: Diani Safarina 82338240016 This research is motivated by the importance of proving the element of mens rea as the basis for criminal liability in corruption offences related to public policy. This research aims to analyse the proof of mens rea, the application of criminal liability, and the legal considerations of the panel of judges in proving the element of unlawful act (wederrechtelijkheid) in Decision Number 34/Pid.Sus-TPK/2025/PN Jkt.Pst in the name of Thomas Trikasih Lembong. The research uses a normative juridical method with legislative, case, and conceptual approaches. Legal materials are analysed qualitatively using a descriptive-analytical method.The research results show that proving mens rea must be based on the relationship between the act, knowledge, intent, purpose, and the resulting consequences, so that financial loss to the state or unlawful acts do not by themselves prove criminal liability. Criminal liability must be based on the principle of legality and the principle of no punishment without guilt, as well as on the fulfilment of all elements of the crime and the existence of a blameworthy fault. In proving the unlawfulness, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between policy error, administrative error, and criminal wrongdoing, because policy or administrative errors do not automatically constitute a crime. Thus, comprehensive proof of mens rea and wederrechtelijkheid is necessary to ensure legal certainty, justice, and proportionality in the enforcement of corruption criminal law. Keywords: Legal Analysis, Mensrea, Criminal Evidence; ABSTRACT LEGAL ANALYSIS OF MENS REA IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION (Case Study of Decision No. 34/Pid.Sus-TPK/2025/PN Jkt.Pst Decision Tom Lembong) By: Diani Safarina 82338240016 This research is motivated by the importance of proving the element of mens rea as the basis for criminal liability in corruption offences related to public policy. This research aims to analyse the proof of mens rea, the application of criminal liability, and the legal considerations of the panel of judges in proving the element of unlawful act (wederrechtelijkheid) in Decision Number 34/Pid.Sus-TPK/2025/PN Jkt.Pst in the name of Thomas Trikasih Lembong. The research uses a normative juridical method with legislative, case, and conceptual approaches. Legal materials are analysed qualitatively using a descriptive-analytical method.The research results show that proving mens rea must be based on the relationship between the act, knowledge, intent, purpose, and the resulting consequences, so that financial loss to the state or unlawful acts do not by themselves prove criminal liability. Criminal liability must be based on the principle of legality and the principle of no punishment without guilt, as well as on the fulfilment of all elements of the crime and the existence of a blameworthy fault. In proving the unlawfulness, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between policy error, administrative error, and criminal wrongdoing, because policy or administrative errors do not automatically constitute a crime. Thus, comprehensive proof of mens rea and wederrechtelijkheid is necessary to ensure legal certainty, justice, and proportionality in the enforcement of corruption criminal law. Keywords: Legal Analysis, Mensrea, Criminal Evidence

2026-09-21T00:00:00Z GINGIN GUNAWAN, MOCH http://repository.unigal.ac.id:8080/handle/123456789/10650 2026-09-22T11:14:09Z 2026-09-21T00:00:00Z

KEKUATAN PEMBUKTIAN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE DALAM PENETAPAN TERSANGKA BERDASARKAN KETENTUAN DUA ALAT BUKTI MENURUT KITAB UNDANG-UNDANG HUKUM ACARA PIDANA (KUHAP) GINGIN GUNAWAN, MOCH ABSTRACT The development of forensic science has significantly transformed the criminal justice system by introducing scientific evidence as an increasingly important means of proof. However, the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP) does not explicitly recognize scientific evidence as an independent form of legal evidence under Article 184, creating legal uncertainty regarding its evidentiary value in determining suspects. This study aims to analyze the legal position of scientific evidence within the Indonesian criminal evidentiary system, examine its evidentiary strength in fulfilling the minimum requirement of two legal pieces of evidence for suspect determination, and formulate a legal construction that provides legal certainty while protecting the rights of suspects. This research employed normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches. The legal materials consisted of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal sources analyzed through qualitative legal reasoning. The results indicate that scientific evidence does not constitute an independent category of evidence under KUHAP but derives its legal force through expert testimony, documentary evidence, or circumstantial evidence. Nevertheless, when supported by scientifically valid forensic methods and evaluated alongside other legal evidence, scientific evidence substantially strengthens criminal proof and contributes to fulfilling the minimum evidentiary threshold established by Article 183 and Article 184 of KUHAP as interpreted by Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014. Therefore, clearer legal regulation is required to ensure consistency, legal certainty, and due process of law in suspect determination. Keywords: scientific evidence, criminal evidence, suspect determination, KUHAP, due process

2026-09-21T00:00:00Z HERDIANSYAH, DIKY http://repository.unigal.ac.id:8080/handle/123456789/10649 2026-09-22T11:03:54Z 2026-09-21T00:00:00Z

PENYELESAIAN PEMIDANAAN TERHADAP PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA KHUSUS LALU LINTAS DI PENGADILAN NEGERI TASIKMALAYA (Studi Perkara Nomor 142/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Tsm) HERDIANSYAH, DIKY ABSTRACT Diky Herdiansyah. 2024. Sentencing Resolution for Perpetrators of Special Traffic Offenses at the Tasikmalaya District Court (A Study of Case Number 142/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Tsm). Supervised by Dr. Ida Farida, S.H., M.H. (Supervisor I) and Dr. Herman Katimin, S.Sos, S.H., M.Si., M.H. (Supervisor II). The objectives of this study are to determine: 1) the sentencing resolution for the perpetrator of a special traffic offense in Case Number 142/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Tsm; 2) the application of restorative justice principles regarding the perpetrator in Case Number 142/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Tsm; and 3) the factors influencing the judge's considerations in determining the sanction for the perpetrator in Case Number 142/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Tsm. This study employs a normative-juridical method. The informants for this study were the presiding judge and two associate judges from the Tasikmalaya District Court. Data analysis was conducted on information gathered through observation and interviews, utilizing a qualitative analysis approach. The research results indicate that: 1) The sentencing process in Case Number 142/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Tsm can be understood as a process that is not solely oriented toward proving guilt but also considers the perpetrator's circumstances and the objectives of sentencing. The sentencing process in this case involved a comprehensive mechanism for establishing proof and criminal liability. The defendant was found guilty because the elements of the special traffic offense were proven; however, the implementation of the sentence was tailored to the defendant's personal circumstances, the consequences of the act, the defendant's attitude, and efforts toward resolution with the victim's family. 2) The application of restorative justice in Case Number 142/Pid.Sus/2024/PN.Tsm can be considered substantively reflected, yet it does not fully appear as a procedural or formal application of restorative justice in accordance with Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) Number 1 of 2024 within the verdict. Substantive elements are evident through the family reconciliation, provision of compensation, restitution for losses, the defendant's admission and expression of remorse, and the imposition of a suspended sentence. Meanwhile, the verdict under analysis retains a sentencing framework based on Article 310 paragraph (4) of Law Number 22 of 2009, while relying on Article 14a paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (KUHP) as the legal basis for the suspended sentence. 3) Factors influencing the judge's determination of the sanction against the defendant can be categorized into two main groups: aggravating factors and mitigating factors. The aggravating factor is the victim's death resulting from the defendant's actions. Conversely, mitigating factors include the defendant's admission of guilt, polite demeanor and expression of remorse, status as a Islamic boarding school student, lack of prior criminal convictions, provision of compensation, replacement of the victim's motorcycle, and the achievement of an amicable settlement between the parties. Keywords: sentencing resolution, special criminal offense perpetrator, traffic

2026-09-21T00:00:00Z