Update Artikelilmiah: 36447

ANGGIT PAMUNGKAS

NIM

Judul Artikel

Abstrak (Bhs. Indonesia)

ABSTRAK

Kejahatan yang berkaitan dengan kepemilikan senjata api dan senjata tajam tanpa ijin untuk melakukan pencurian dengan kekerasan secara bersama-sama. Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Utara Nomor : 1212/Pid.B/2020/PN Jkt.Utr telah menyatakan bahwa para perbuatan Terdakwa I,  Terdakwa II, Terdakwa III, dan Terdakwa IV telah terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan perbuatannya telah memenuhi rumusan delik Pasal 1 Ayat (1) UU Nomor 12 Tahun 1951 Jo Pasal 55 Ayat (1) ke1 KUHP, Kedua Pasal 2 Ayat (1) UU Nomor 12 Tahun 1951 Jo Pasal 55 Ayat (1) ke-1 KUHP, Ketiga Primair Pasal 365 Ayat (2) ke-2 KUHP.
Penelitian ini bertujuan mengetahui penerapan unsur-unsur Pasal 1 Ayat (1) Undang-Undang Darurat Nomor 12 Tahun 1951 tentang Senjata Api  Jo. Pasal 55 Ayat (1) ke1 KUHP, Kedua Pasal 2 Ayat (1) Undang-Undang Darurat Nomor 12 Tahun 1951 Jo. Pasal 55 Ayat (1) ke-1 KUHP, Ketiga Primair Pasal 365 Ayat (2) ke-2 KUHP dalam Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Utara Nomor. 1212/Pid.B/2020/PN Jkt.Utr. dan dasar pertimbangan hukum hakim dalam menjatuhkan sanksi pidana. Penelitian ini menggunakan tipe penelitian hukum secara yuridis normatif, dengan metode pendekatan pendekatan undang-undang (statute approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach) Spesifikasi penelitian ini adalah perskriptif, dengan jenis dan sumber data sekunder dan analisis data dilakukan secara deskrtiptif kualitatif. 
Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dan pembahasan dapat disimpulkan bahwa Majelis Hakim kurang tepat menerapkan dengan Pasal 365 Ayat (2) ke-2 KUHP tersebut, karena perbuatan para terdakwa justru terbukti memenuhi unsur pengancaman sebagaimana diatur Pasal 368 KUHP dalam dakwaan subsidiar, hal ini didasarkan pada perbuatan para terdakwa yang melakukan pengancaman dengan senjata api dan senjata tajam agar para korban menyerahkan uang, hasil tangkapan (Cumi) dan BBM jenis solar. Atas perbuatan pengancaman tersebut, lebih tepat jika hakim menggunakan Pasal 368 KUHP. Hakim dalam memutus telah mempertimbangkan baik dari aspek perbuatan  maupun orangnya, kekuatan alat bukti, alasan penghapus pidana dan hal-hal meringankan dan memberatkakan terdakwa. Namun  dalam penjatuhan sanksi pidana kurang memperhatikan landasan yuridis, filosofis dan sosiologis.

Abtrak (Bhs. Inggris)

ABSTRACT
The  crime related to the possession of firearms and sharp weapons without a license to commit theft with violence together. The decision of the North Jakarta District Court Number: 1212/Pid.B/2020/PN Jkt.Utr has stated that the actions of the First Defendant, Second Defendant, Third Defendant, and Fourth Defendant have been proven legally and convincingly that their actions have fulfilled the offense formulation of Article 1 Paragraph (1) of Law Number 12 of 1951 Jo Article 55 Paragraph (1) to the 1st Criminal Code, Second Article 2 Paragraph (1) of Law Number 12 of 1951 Jo Article 55 Paragraph (1) to the 1st Criminal Code, Third Primair Article 365 Paragraph (2) 2nd Criminal Code.
This study aims to determine the application of the elements of Article 1 Paragraph (1) of Emergency Law Number 12 of 1951 concerning Firearms Jo. Article 55 Paragraph (1) to 1 Criminal Code, Second Article 2 Paragraph (1) of Emergency Law Number 12 of 1951 Jo. Article 55 Paragraph (1) to 1 Criminal Code, Third Primair Article 365 Paragraph (2) to 2 Criminal Code in the North Jakarta District Court Decision Number. 1212/Pid.B/2020/PN Jkt.Utr. and the basis for the judge's legal considerations in imposing criminal sanctions. This research uses a normative juridical type of legal research, with a statute approach and case approach. The specifications of this research are prescriptive, with secondary data types and sources and data analysis is carried out in a qualitative descriptive manner.
Based on the results of the research and discussion, it can be concluded that the Panel of Judges was incorrect in applying Article 365 Paragraph (2) 2 of the Criminal Code, because the actions of the defendants were proven to fulfill the element of threatening as stipulated in Article 368 of the Criminal Code in the subsidiary charges, this is based on the actions of the defendants who made threats with firearms and sharp weapons so that the victims handed over money, catches (squid) and diesel fuel. For this act of extortion, it is more appropriate for the judge to use Article 368 of the Penal Code. The judge in making the decision has considered both aspects of the act and the person, the strength of the evidence, the reasons for the elimination of the crime and the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the defendant. However, in imposing criminal sanctions, there is less attention to juridical, philosophical and sociological foundations.

Kata kunci

Pembimbing 1

Pembimbing 2

Pembimbing 3

Tahun

Jumlah Halaman