PENYELESAIAN PEMIDANAAN TERHADAP PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA KHUSUS LALU LINTAS DI PENGADILAN NEGERI TASIKMALAYA (Studi Perkara Nomor 142/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Tsm)

Abstract

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