Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://repository.uma.ac.id/handle/123456789/15910
Title: Analisis Yuridis Tindak Pidana Korupsi Menerima Hadiah Karena Kekuasaan (Studi Putusan Nomor 09/Pid.Sus-Tpk/2018/Pn.Mdn)
Other Titles: Juridical Analysis of Corruption Crimes Receiving Gifts Because of Power (Study of Decision Number 09/Pid.Sus-Tpk/2018/Pn.Mdn)
Authors: Jauhari, Iman
Marlina
Hermanto, Jefry
Keywords: tindak pidana
korupsi
menerima hadiah
kekuasaan
crime
corruption
receiving gifts
power
Issue Date: 3-Sep-2020
Publisher: Universitas Medan Area
Series/Report no.: NPM;181803054
Abstract: Korupsi di Indonesia masih sangat tinggi. Banyak pejabat negara yang harus berhadapan dengan penegak hukum karena diduga melakukan tindak pidana korupsi. Bahkan banyak di antaranya yang tertangkap tangan oleh Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK). Berdasarkan hal tersebut perumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini: 1) Bagaimana pengaturan hukum tentang tindak pidana korupsi di Indonesia, 2) Bagaimana penegakan hukum terhadap tindak pidana korupsi menerima hadiah di bidang pendidikan di Kota Medan, 3) Bagaimana dasar pertimbangan majelis hakim dalam memutus perkara pidana korupsi sesuai Putusan No. 09/Pid-Sus-TPK/2018/PN.Mdn. Adapun metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode deskriptif, sedangkan teknik analisis data menggunakan deskriptif kualitatif. Dari hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa aturan hukum tindak pidana korupsi diatur dalam UU No. 20 Tahun 2001 Tentang Perubahan Atas UU No. 31 Tahun 1999 Tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Tetapi ternyata hingga saat ini undang-undang tersebut tidak mampu menanggulangi tindak pidana korupsi, karena perkara korupsi yang terjadi tetap marak di Indonesia. Pada Pasal 2 ayat (2) UU tersebut diatur mengenai pidana mati terhadap terdakwa korupsi, tetapi majelis hakim belum pernah menjatuhkan pidana mati kepada terdakwa koruptor. Majelis hakim pada Pengadilan Negeri Medan telah berupaya melakukan penegakan hukum secara tegas kepada terdakwa dalam perkara korupsi. Majelis hakim juga berupaya mengembalikan kerugian negara dari tindak pidana korupsi yang terjadi dengan melakukan perampasan terhadap harta benda koruptor. Tetapi hal tersebut tidak mudah dilakukan karena besar kemungkinan bahwa koruptor telah menyembunyikan harga bendanya dengan rapi sehingga tidak mudah untuk dilacak. Penjatuhan pidana penjara telah berhasil memberikan penjeraan kepada terdakwa tetapi tidak memberi efek jera pada pelaku lain, sehingga majelis hakim seharusnya lebih berani menjatuhkan pidana mati. Majelis hakim juga perlu dengan tegas menolak segala bentuk intervensi dari pihak lain, sehingga penanganan perkara tetap berjalan sesuai hukum yang berlaku. Majelis hakim yang mengadili perkara dalam putusan No. 09/Pid-Sus-TPK/PN.Mdn membuat putusan yang kurang tepat. Majelis hakim menyatakan terdakwa secara sah dan meyakinkan bersalah melakukan tindak pidana “KORUPSI” sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 11 UU Tipikor pada dakwaan kedua. Tetapi perbuatan terdakwa telah memenuhi unsur ‘dengan menyalahgunakan kekuasaannya memaksa seseorang memberikan sesuatu’, sehingga lebih tepat dinyatakan secara sah dan meyakinkan bersalah melakukan tindak pidana sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 12 huruf e UU Tipikor pada dakwaan pertama. Disarankan Majelis hakim perlu menjatuhkan pidana yang lebih berat kepada terdakwa tindak pidana korupsi, agar dapat memberikan efek penjeraan bagi pejabat negara lainnya. Majelis hakim perlu lebih tegas menolak segala bentuk intervensi dari pihak lain agar penanganan perkara korupsi dapat dilakukan secara lebih tegas. Majelis hakim perlu lebih cermat dalam menetapkan putusannya, agar putusan yang dibuat menjadi lebih tepat sesuai dengan tindak pidana yang dilakukan oleh terdakwa. Corruption in Indonesia is still very high. Many state officials have to deal with law enforcement because they are suspected of committing criminal acts of corruption. In fact, many of them were caught red-handed by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). Based on this, the formulation of the problem in this study: 1) How do the legal arrangements regarding criminal acts of corruption in Indonesia, 2) How do law enforcement against corruption receive gifts in the field of education in Medan, 3) What are the basic considerations of judges in deciding criminal cases corruption in accordance with Decision No. 09 / Pid-Sus-TPK / 2018 / PN.Mdn. The research method used is descriptive method, while the data analysis technique uses qualitative descriptive. From the results of this study indicate that the legal rules of corruption are regulated in Law No. 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crimes. But it turns out that until now the law has not been able to tackle corruption, because corruption cases are still rife in Indonesia. Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Law regulates the death penalty against corruption defendants, but the panel of judges has never handed down a death sentence on corrupt defendants. The panel of judges at the Medan District Court has sought to enforce the law firmly against the defendant in corruption cases. The panel of judges also seeks to recover the state losses from corruption that occurred by seizing corruptors' property. But this is not easy to do because it is likely that the corruptor has hidden the price of the object neatly so that it is not easy to track. The sentence of imprisonment has succeeded in providing detention to the defendant but does not provide a deterrent effect on other perpetrators, so that the panel of judges should be more daring to impose the death penalty. The judges also need to firmly reject all forms of intervention from other parties, so that the handling of the case continues to run according to applicable law. The panel of judges who tried the case in decision No. 09 / Pid-Sus-TPK / PN.Mdn made an inappropriate decision. The panel of judges declared the defendant legally and convincingly guilty of committing the crime of "CORRUPTION" as regulated in Article 11 of the Corruption Act on the second indictment. But the act of the defendant has fulfilled the element 'by abusing his power to force someone to give something', so that it is more correct to be declared legally and convincingly guilty of committing a crime as regulated in Article 12 letter e of the Corruption Act on the first indictment. It is recommended that the Panel of Judges need to impose more severe penalties on the accused of corruption, in order to provide deterrence effects for other state officials. The panel of judges needs to be more firm in rejecting all forms of intervention from other parties so that the handling of corruption cases can be carried out more firmly. The panel of judges needs to be more careful in setting their decisions, so that decisions made are more appropriate in accordance with criminal acts committed by the defendant.
Description: 122 Halaman
URI: http://repository.uma.ac.id/handle/123456789/15910
Appears in Collections:MT - Master of Law

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
181803054 - Jefry Hermanto - Chapter IV.pdf
  Restricted Access
Chapter IV648.45 kBAdobe PDFView/Open Request a copy
181803054 - Jefry Hermanto - Fulltext.pdfCover, Abstract, Chapter I, II, III, V, Bibliography1.69 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.