ABSTRAK
Konsep saksi mahkota yang dilaksanakan di peradilan Indonesia saat ini masihmenimbulkan kontroversi dan perdebatan dikalangan praktisi maupun akademisi,karena memang sesungguhnya belum ada definisi normatif tentang saksi mahkotatermuat dalam undang-undang. Apabila dibandingkan dengan konsep saksimahkota di negara lain, ternyata terdapat perbedaan yang sangat mendasar yaitupada konsep di Eropa dan Amerika sebelum diterapkan saksi mahkota harusdilakukan terlebih dahulu kesepakatan kerjasama atara penuntut umum dan saksimahkota dalam penuntutan tindak pidana, sedangkang di Indonesia lebihmengartikan saksi mahkota sebagai kesaksian saling menyaksikan antara sesamapelaku tindak pidana penyertaan dalam tindak pidana untuk tujuan sempurnayapembuktian.Tujuan dari penelitian ini mengkaji mengenai penerapan saksimahkota dalam peradilan pidana dan memperbandingkanya dengan pelaksanaansaksi mahkota di Belanda dan Amerika Serikat serta melihat paradigma saksimahkota menurut hukum acara pidana yang akan datang. Metode penelitian yangdigunaka yuridis normatif. Dari hasil penelitian diperoleh suatu kenyataan konsepsaksi mahkota yang dilaksanakan dalam peradilan pidana di Indonesia saat inimelanggar asas non self incrimination. Peranan saksi mahkota dibutuhkan dalammenghadapi permasalahn kurangnya alat bukti saksi pada penyertaan dalamtindak pidana. Penerapan konsep saksi mahkota dalam peradilan saat ini hanyamewujudkan suatu kepastian hukum, sehingga kurang memperhatikan caramemperoleh alat bukti (exclusionary rule), dan pentinya alat bukti yang salingmenguatkan (corroborating evidence) dalam penerapan saksi mahkota. Secarasubtansi dalam RUU KUHAP terjadi perubahan sangat signifikat mengenaikonsep saksi mahkota dengan menyerap konsep saksi mahkota yang di kenal diEropa dan Amerika Serikat.

---

ABSTRACT
The concept of crown witness implemented in Indonesian courts is still causingcontroversy and debates among practitioners and academicians, because actuallythere has been no normative definition of crown witness contained in thelegislation. When compared with the concept of crown witness in other countries,there are fundamental differences. In Europe and the USA before crown witnessis applied, a cooperation agreement shall be made first between the publicprosecutor and the crown witness in a criminal proceeding; whereas in Indonesiawhat is referred to as crown witness is a witness who came from suspects ordefendants and testify against other suspects/perpetrators in a crime in order toobtain perfect/complete evidence. The purpose of this research is to examine theapplication of crown witness in the criminal proceedings and compare it with theimplementation of crown witness in the Netherlands and the United States as wellas to see the crown witnesses paradigm in accordance with the law of criminalprocedure which will be applicable in the future. The research method employedis judicial normative. Based on the research findings it is discovered that theconcept of crown witness in criminal proceedings in Indonesia today violates theprinciple of non-self incrimination. The role of crown witnesses is required as aconsequence of lack of evidence of witnesses in the participation (deelneming) ina crime. The application of the crown witness concept in court today is only torealize the rule of law so it does not take into consideration the manner inobtaining evidence (exclusionary rule) and the importance of corroboratingevidence in the application of crown witnesses. In substance, the Draft of theCriminal Procedure Code experiences very significant changes in the concept ofcrown witness by absorbing the concept of crown witnesses which is known inEurope and the United States.