Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKKebebasan mengemukakan pendapat adalah hak setiap warga Negara untuk mengeluarkan pikiran tanpa ada tekanan dari siapapun. Hak ini termasuk pula pendapat yang disampaikan pengguna internet di media social. Akan tetapi, hak mengeluarkan pendapat tersebut justru dilanggar dengan adanya berita yang menyampaikan bahwa, terdapat pengguna internet yang dipidana dikarenakan mereka menyampaikan pendapat di media social, dan pendapat tersebut, menurut pihak tertentu mengandung unsur pencemaran nama baik. Jurnal ini membahas mengenai adanya kriminalisasi terhadap pengguna internet yang menyampaikan pendapatnya di media sosial dengan menggunakan undang-undang ITE untuk kepentingan pihak tertentu. Dalam artikel ini, fokus utamanya adalah undang-undang yang mengkriminalisasi yang diberlakukan oleh negara Indonesia dan bagaimana undang-undang tersebut terkait dengan hak asasi manusia atas kebebasan berekspresi dan pendapat. Indonesia adalah salah satu negara demokrasi di seluruh dunia dan memiliki sebuah konstitusi yang bertujuan melindungi warganya. Namun, berlakunya undang-undang ITE nampaknya menentang pengakuan tertinggi atas hak asasi manusia dan kebebasan. Undang-undang ITE membatasi kebebasan tersebut karena telah mengkriminalisasi sebagian besar platform di mana warga negara dapat dengan bebas dan secara damai mengungkapkan pendapat mereka.

---

ABSTRACTFreedom of expression is the right of every citizen to issue his mind without any pressure from anyone. These rights include opinions submitted by Internet users in social media. However, the right to issue such opinion is actually violated by the news that there are Internet users who are convicted because they express their opinion in social media, and that opinion, according to certain parties contain elements of defamation. This journal discusses the criminalization of internet users who express their opinions in social media using ITE legislation for the benefit of certain parties. In this paper, the main focus is the criminalizing law imposed by the Indonesian state and how it relates to human rights of freedom of expression and opinion. Indonesia is one of the world 39 s leading democracies and has a constitution aimed at protecting its citizens. However, the enactment of the ITE legislation appears to be opposed to the highest recognition of human rights and freedoms. The ITE Act limits that freedom because it has criminalized most platforms where citizens can freely and peacefully express their opinions."

"Pada tahun 2009-2012, rangkaian kekerasan kolektif bernuansa agama, sekte, keyakinan, etnis, golongan dan orientasi seksual terjadi di Indonesia. Berbagai peristiwa tersebut menunjukkan, kekerasan yang dilandasi perasaan kebencian sering terjadi di sekitar kita. Peristiwa tersebut, jatuh korban manusia dan kerugian harta yang tidak sedikit, serta menimbulkan luka yang mendalam dan permusuhan yang berkepanjangan. Fenomena inilah yang disebut dengan "kejahatan kebencian (hate crimes)."Penelitian ini bertujuan menjelaskan pentingnya pemahaman yang komprehensif mengenai kebijakan-kebijakan penanganan hate crimes oleh lembaga otoritas negara terkait. Selain itu, penelitian ini juga berupaya memberikan pemahaman baru mengenai urgensi kriminalisasi terhadap hate crimes di Indonesia dilihat dari faktor pendukung dan penghambatnya.Penelitian menghasilkan berbagai temuan, antara lain bahwa terjadi hate crimes secara bias terhadap agama dan orientasi seksual di Indonesia. Terdapat dua kategori hate crimes berbasis agama, yaitu antara agama yang berbeda, dan antara sekte di dalam satu agama yang sama.Hasil analisis, ada dua syarat agar kriminalisasi hate crimes dapat dilaksanakan. Pertama, prespektif yang digunakan konsensus liberal, konflik, dan labeling. Prespektif tersebut berhubungan timbal balik dengan konstruksi sosial tentang hate crimes. Konstruksi sosial ini signifikan sebagai faktor pendukung dan penghambat kriminalisasi. Jika konstruksi sosial terhadap hate crimes adalah sebagai perilaku jahat, ketidaksetaraan dan penindasan kelompok minoritas, maka persepsi mendukung kriminalisasi. Jika hate crimes bukan kejahatan, maka dapat menghambat kriminalisasi. Kedua, terpenuhinya tujuh parameter Schuyt berhubungan timbal balik dengan legalitas sosial bagi kriminalisasi hate crimes. Kriminalisasi hate crimes tidak selalu berbentuk undang-undang baru, melainkan bisa saja pemberdayaan undang-undang yang ada dan supremasi hukum, serta profesionalisme penegakan hukum.Kesimpulannya, kriminalisasi hate crimes akan terwujud bila terdapat signifikansi konstruksi dan legalitas sosial sebagai faktor pendukung. Kesimpulan ini menggambarkan teori baru bersifat meso-mikro, karena berkategori teori Posmo. Teori ini dapat menjelaskan kriminalisasi dalam interplay dengan filosofi sosial, kebijakan hukum (meso), namun juga dapat menjelaskan interplay dengan individu dan kelompok.

---

In 2009-2012, a series of collective violent incidents triggered by religions, sects, beliefs, ethnicity, class and sexual orientation, broke out in various places in Indonesia. Such incidents show that violence based on hatred often occurs around us, causing a long death toll and damaged properties. Such incidents have also inflicted deep social wounds and protracted hostilities. This phenomenon is called "hate crimes." The research aims at describing the importance of a comprehensive understanding on policies employed by related authorities or government agencies in controling hate crimes. In addition, this research is also trying to provide a new understanding on the urgency of the criminalization of hate crimes in Indonesia, viewed from the enabling and constraining factors.Findings of the research include, among others, biased hate crimes have taken place against religious affiliations and sexual orientation in Indonesia. Two categories are set up for religious-based hate crimes: between different religions and among different sects of the same religion.Analysis on research findings arrives at a conclusion, that there should at least be present two prerequisites to criminalize hate crimes. First, the use of liberal consensus, conflict, and labeling perspectives as a tool of analysis. All perspectives reciprocally connect with the existing social construction of hate crimes. Social constructions are indeed significant as enabling and constraining factors for criminalization. When the existing social construction perceives hate crimes as an evil act, an inequality and an oppression of minority groups, then the perception encourages criminalization. But when social construction perceives hate crimes as a good behaviour, then the perception discourages criminalization.Second, Schuyt?s seven parameters are met, which reciprocally relate to the social legality for criminalizing hate crimes. Criminalization of hate crimes is not necessarily present in the form of a new law or act. It could also be manifested by empowering the existing laws, assuring the principle of law supremacy and increasing professionalism among law enforcement agencies.This research concludes that criminalization of hate crimes could be established only if significant social construction and legality are built as enabling and constraining factors. This conclusion reflects the new theory as meso-micro in character, since it is placed under postmodernism. The theory can explain the relations and interplays between not only criminalization and social philosophies but also interplays of criminalization and individuals and groups."

"ABSTRAKBeberapa dekade terakhir, teknologi terus berkembang pesat. Dapat dikatakan bahwa semakin canggihnya perangkat, platform, dan aplikasi sebagai bagian dari teknologi telah memengaruhi cara berkomunikasi antar manusia, sebagaimana dikatakan oleh Marshall McLuhan di dalam Teori Determinisme Teknologi. Namun, meningkatnya akses internet dan teknologi informasi membuat orang semakin mudah mendapatkan informasi dan berpendapat secara bebas di depan umum tentang apa yang mereka pikirkan. Besarnya penetrasi internet di Indonesia membuat kasus perundungan siber di media sosial semakin marak terjadi. Tidak hanya masyarakat biasa, selebriti juga rentan menjadi korban perundungan siber. Di era digital ini, InsertLive muncul sebagai akun gosip seputar informasi selebriti dengan 797 ribu pengikut di Instagram. Namun, perkembangan teknologi ini telah memengaruhi cara pengguna media sosial bertindak dan mengekspresikan pendapatnya secara bebas melalui akun InsertLive yang telah mengarah kepada perundungan siber. Akun gosip seperti InsertLive kerap mengunggah foto dan merangkai judul serta caption yang mengandung unsur penghinaan, merendahkan martabat manusia, dan penggiringan opini sehingga mendorong netizen untuk memperolok melalui kolom komentar. Ucapan menghina yang dimaknai sebagai bagian dari hak atas kebebasan berpendapat merupakan kekeliruan yang menjadi sebuah paradoks di media siber.

---

ABSTRACTThe last few decades, technology continues to develop rapidly. It can be said that the increasingly sophisticated devices, platforms, and applications as part of technology has influenced the way of communication between people, as Marshall McLuhan said in the Theory of Technological Determinism. However, increasing internet access and information technology makes it easier for people to get information and freely express their opinions in public about what they think. The large internet penetration in Indonesia has made cyber bullying cases on social media more widespread. Not only ordinary people, celebrities are also vulnerable to becoming victims of cyber bullying. In this digital age, InsertLive emerged as a gossip account about celebrity information with 797 thousand followers on Instagram. However, the development of technology has influenced the way social media users act and express their opinions freely through an InsertLive account that has led to cyber bullying. Gossip accounts like InsertLive often upload photos and arrange titles and captions that contain elements of humiliation, degradation, and lead opinions so that they drive netizens to mock through comments. Humiliation which are interpreted as part of the right to freedom of speech is a fallacy that became a paradox in cyber media."

"Skripsi membahas aturan kriminalisasi hakim agung dalam memutus perkara yang tertuang dalam Pasal 98 juncto Pasal 97 huruf a, b dan c Rancangan Undang Undang tentang Mahkamah Agung (RUU MA) dikaitkan dengan kriteria kriminalisasi yang dinyatakan sejumlah pakar hukum pidana dan asas lex certa. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kepustakaan yang berbentuk yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan aturan kriminalisasi hakim agung tidak sesuai dengan kriteria kriminalisasi. Hasil penelitian menunjukan dalam doktrin klasik, aturan kriminalisasi hakim agung tidak memenuhi asas lex certa. Jika menurut doktrin modern,aturan kriminalisasi tersebut memenuhi asas lex certa selama peran pemenuhannya juga menjadi tanggung jawab penegak hukum.

---

Thesis discusses criminalization of supreme judge rule on deciding case under Article 98 juncto Article 97 a, b and c Law on the Supreme Court Act (Draft) associated with criminalization criteria stated by law experts and the principle of lex certa. This is a normative research described form of literature studies. Results showed criminalization rule (Draft) of Supreme Judge didnt match with criteria of criminalization. According to classical doctrine, criminalization rule (draft) of supreme judge didnt meet lex certa principle. But according to modern doctrine, criminalization rules did match with lex certa principle within responsibility of judge to fulfill it."

"ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas mengenai bagaimana suatu kebijakan yang dibuat oleh PejabatAdministrasi Pemerintahan dapat dikenai sanksi pidana. Penelitian ini merupakanpenelitian kualitatif dengan pendekatan yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitianmenyarankan agar segera disahkannya Rancangan Undang-Undang AdministrasiPemerintahan. Dengan disahkannya Rancangan Undang-Undang AdministrasiPemerintahan, jika pejabat administrasi pemerintahan melakukan suatu kesalahanatau pelanggaran, dapat dengan mudah dilihat apakah hal tersebut merupakan suatupelanggaran administrasi atau pelanggaran hukum sehingga tidak ada lagi pejabatyang kebal hukum. Adanya sanksi pidana bagi pejabat administrasi pemerintahanyang menyalahgunakan wewenangnya dalam mengambil suatu kebijakan, diharapkandapat membuat pejabat administrasi pemerintahan selalu menggunakan segenapkemampuan intelektual dan keahliannya serta mengedepankan prinsip kehati-hatiansecara obyektif dan tanggung jawab dalam mengambil suatu kebijakan.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis examines how a policy made by Governance Administration Officialcould be subject to criminal sanctions. This study is a qualitative research withnormative juridical approach. The results of the study suggest that the Bill ofGovernance Administration should pass immediately. With the law, if the governanceadministration officials happen to make a mistake or violate the law, it is easy todefine whether it is an administrative or law violation, so there will be no moreofficials are above the law. The criminal sanctions for governance administrationofficials, who abuse their authority in making a policy, is expected to make themalways use all their intellectual abilities and expertise as well as to put forwardprudential principle objectively and responsibly."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai pengalaman seorang perempuan bernama Maria, berusia 21 tahun, sebagai perempuan yang mengalami dominasi laki-laki sebagai bentuk empiris struktur patriarki yang kemudian menghasilkan isu moral di dalam masyarakat bahwa aborsi merupakan tindakan pembunuhan anak yang tidak boleh dilakukan oleh perempuan serta mengakibatkan perempuan pelaku aborsi mengalami kriminalisasi. Penelitian ini ditulis dengan menggunakan perspektif feminis kriminologi (feminis radikal, etika feminis, dan hukum feminis), penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dengan tipe penelitian studi kasus feminis yang memungkinkan peneliti untuk mengetengahkan pengalaman perempuan di dalam isu aborsi. Pada akhirnya, penelitian ini menemukan bahwa kriminalisasi terhadap Maria (perempuan pelaku aborsi) adalah sebuah kejahatan karena telah memberikan penindasan bagi otonomi tubuh perempuan dimana hak kesehatan reproduksi dan seksual perempuan tidak dihormati.

---

This minithesis discusses the experienced of a woman named Maria, aged 21 years, as a women who experienced male dominance as a form of empirical patriarchal structure which then generates moral issues in society that abortion is an act of child murder that should not be done by women and lead women criminalizing abortion experience. This study was authored by using feminist perspectives in criminology (radical feminist, feminist ethics, and feminist law), this study used a qualitative approach to the type of feminist case study that allows researchers to present the experience of women in the abortion issue. In the end, this study found that the criminalization of Maria (women abortion) is a crime because it has provided for the suppression of women's autonomy body where sexual and reproductive health rights of women are not respected."

"[ABSTRAKTesis ini membahas kebijakan Aparatur Negara dalam dugaan tindakpidana korupsi. Dengan mengkaji konsep dan kewenangan kebijakan Aparatur Negara dalam Hukum Administrasi dan Hukum pidana. Kebijakan tersebut dinilai dari kedua pendekatan ilmu hukum tersebut untuk menilai kebijakan Aparatur yang bagaimana dapat dikriminalisasikan sebagai tindak pidana korupsi. Dalam tesis ini yang ingin didapatkan oleh penulis adalah (1) Apakah suatu kebijakanAparatur Negara yang melanggar ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan dapat dimungkinkan untuk dikenakan sanksi pidana; (2) Bagaimana terhadap suatu kebijakan Aparatur Negara yang di dalamnya mengandung unsur perbuatan melawan hukum atau unsur penyalahgunaan wewenang dalam tindak pidana korupsi; (3) Apakah terhadap kebijakan yang dikeluarkan oleh Aparatur Negara yang memberikan keuntungan kepada orang lain atau korporasi dan menimbulkan kerugian negara dapat dikenakan tindak pidana korupsi sedangkan dia tidak ada menikmati hasil tindakannya. Penelitian ini mengunakan metode penelitian dengan pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan mengunakan data sekunder seperti dari buku-buku dan peraturan perundang-undangan yang terkait dengan tindak pidana korupsi, kerugian negara, penyalahgunaan wewenag dan literatur-literatur terkait lainnya. Kebijakan Aparatur Negara harus berdasarkan peraturan perundang-undangan. Seorang pejabat dilarang melakukan penyalahgunaan wewenang yang melanggar ketentuan perundang-undangan. Namun disisi lain pejabat juga diberikan hak kebebasan dalam mengambil kebijakan untuk kepentingan orang banyak bahkan kalaupun undang-undang tidak mengaturnya dapat diterapkan berdasarkan AAUPB. Namun apabila kebijakan tersebut ada unsur mens rea (niat jahat) dan dilakukan dengan sengaja maka kebijakanAparatur Negara tersebut dapat diminta pertanggungjawab pribadi bukan jabatan atas perbuatannya tersebut. Kalau perbuatan itu tidak ada unsur mens rea maka masuk kedalam ranah hukum administrasi atau hukum perdata. Pada saat ini kebijakan Aparatur Negara telah masuk dalam kategori kriminalisasi. Hal ini terjadi karena adanya kesalahan dalam pemahaman dimana kerugian negara ditempat sebagai bukti utama telah terjadi korupsi atas perbuatannya yangmelawan hukum atau menyalahgunakan wewenang tanpa diikuti adanya unsur koruptif. Padahal dalam banyak kasus kerugian negara ini terjadi karena adanya kesalahan administratif atau kecurangan dari pihak pemenang tender yang memanipulasi barang dan data sehingga tidak sesuai spesifikasi yang mana dokumen tersebut dipalsukan dan dibuat seolah-olah sah dan legal. Oleh karenanya, dengan lahirnya Undang-Undang No. 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Negara diharapkan dapat memberikan perlindungan akan kriminalisasi terhadap putusan dan/atau tindakan Aparatur Negara yang didalamnya tidak ada unsur koruptifnya.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis examines the policy of the State Apparatus in alleged corruption. To examines the concept and authority policy of the State Apparatus in Administrative Law and Criminal Law. The such policy is assessed from two approach the science of law to assessing how policies Apparatus which can becriminalized as an act of corruption. In this thesis that want achieved by the author are (1) Does a State Apparatus policies that violate the provisions of the legislation can be subject to criminal sanctions; (2) When is a policy of the State Apparatus can be regarded fulfill the elements of tort or elements of abuse of power in corruption; (3) A State Apparatus policies that provide benefits to another person or corporation and causing state losses while he did not get to enjoy the results of his conduct, whether such conduct may be subject tocorruption. This research uses research methods with normative juridical approach by using secondary data as the basis for this research as from books and legislation relating to corruption, state losses, abuse of power and other related literature and also supported by directly interviews to some of prosecutor in corruption. State Apparatus policy should be based law and legislation. A government official is prohibited do abuse of power that violate the statutoryprovisions. On the other hand the government official also granted the right of freedom in making decisions for the public good even if the law does not yet set such, the government official can make policy based on the Good Governance Principles. However, if the such policy has element of mens rea (malice) and there is deliberate and realized then the policies of the State Apparatus may be subject to responsibility in corruption. If the conduct did not have element mens rea thenhis conduct entered into the administrative law or civil law. At this time the policy of the State Apparatus has been included in the category of criminalization in corruption. This occurs because of an error in understanding where state losses in place as the primary evidence of corruption has occurred for his conduct against the law or abuse of power while his conduct without being followed by the corrupt elements. Therefore, there are cases of state losses caused toadministrative error or fraud, or because of defective juridical. To publication of Law No. 30 Year 2014 on the State Administration as a form protection to the criminalization of the decision and / or conduct of State Apparatus in which there is no element of corruptive;This thesis examines the policy of the State Apparatus in alleged corruption. Toexamines the concept and authority policy of the State Apparatus inAdministrative Law and Criminal Law. The such policy is assessed from twoapproach the science of law to assessing how policies Apparatus which can becriminalized as an act of corruption. In this thesis that want achieved by the authorare (1) Does a State Apparatus policies that violate the provisions of thelegislation can be subject to criminal sanctions; (2) When is a policy of the StateApparatus can be regarded fulfill the elements of tort or elements of abuse ofpower in corruption; (3) A State Apparatus policies that provide benefits toanother person or corporation and causing state losses while he did not get toenjoy the results of his conduct, whether such conduct may be subject tocorruption. This research uses research methods with normative juridical approachby using secondary data as the basis for this research as from books andlegislation relating to corruption, state losses, abuse of power and other relatedliterature and also supported by directly interviews to some of prosecutor incorruption. State Apparatus policy should be based law and legislation. Agovernment official is prohibited do abuse of power that violate the statutoryprovisions. On the other hand the government official also granted the right offreedom in making decisions for the public good even if the law does not yet setsuch, the government official can make policy based on the Good GovernancePrinciples. However, if the such policy has element of mens rea (malice) and thereis deliberate and realized then the policies of the State Apparatus may be subjectto responsibility in corruption. If the conduct did not have element mens rea thenhis conduct entered into the administrative law or civil law. At this time the policyof the State Apparatus has been included in the category of criminalization incorruption. This occurs because of an error in understanding where state losses inplace as the primary evidence of corruption has occurred for his conduct againstthe law or abuse of power while his conduct without being followed by thecorrupt elements. Therefore, there are cases of state losses caused toadministrative error or fraud, or because of defective juridical. To publication ofLaw No. 30 Year 2014 on the State Administration as a form protection to thecriminalization of the decision and / or conduct of State Apparatus in which thereis no element of corruptive;This thesis examines the policy of the State Apparatus in alleged corruption. Toexamines the concept and authority policy of the State Apparatus inAdministrative Law and Criminal Law. The such policy is assessed from twoapproach the science of law to assessing how policies Apparatus which can becriminalized as an act of corruption. In this thesis that want achieved by the authorare (1) Does a State Apparatus policies that violate the provisions of thelegislation can be subject to criminal sanctions; (2) When is a policy of the StateApparatus can be regarded fulfill the elements of tort or elements of abuse ofpower in corruption; (3) A State Apparatus policies that provide benefits toanother person or corporation and causing state losses while he did not get toenjoy the results of his conduct, whether such conduct may be subject tocorruption. This research uses research methods with normative juridical approachby using secondary data as the basis for this research as from books andlegislation relating to corruption, state losses, abuse of power and other relatedliterature and also supported by directly interviews to some of prosecutor incorruption. State Apparatus policy should be based law and legislation. Agovernment official is prohibited do abuse of power that violate the statutoryprovisions. On the other hand the government official also granted the right offreedom in making decisions for the public good even if the law does not yet setsuch, the government official can make policy based on the Good GovernancePrinciples. However, if the such policy has element of mens rea (malice) and thereis deliberate and realized then the policies of the State Apparatus may be subjectto responsibility in corruption. If the conduct did not have element mens rea thenhis conduct entered into the administrative law or civil law. At this time the policyof the State Apparatus has been included in the category of criminalization incorruption. This occurs because of an error in understanding where state losses inplace as the primary evidence of corruption has occurred for his conduct againstthe law or abuse of power while his conduct without being followed by thecorrupt elements. Therefore, there are cases of state losses caused toadministrative error or fraud, or because of defective juridical. To publication ofLaw No. 30 Year 2014 on the State Administration as a form protection to thecriminalization of the decision and / or conduct of State Apparatus in which thereis no element of corruptive, This thesis examines the policy of the State Apparatus in alleged corruption. Toexamines the concept and authority policy of the State Apparatus inAdministrative Law and Criminal Law. The such policy is assessed from twoapproach the science of law to assessing how policies Apparatus which can becriminalized as an act of corruption. In this thesis that want achieved by the authorare (1) Does a State Apparatus policies that violate the provisions of thelegislation can be subject to criminal sanctions; (2) When is a policy of the StateApparatus can be regarded fulfill the elements of tort or elements of abuse ofpower in corruption; (3) A State Apparatus policies that provide benefits toanother person or corporation and causing state losses while he did not get toenjoy the results of his conduct, whether such conduct may be subject tocorruption. This research uses research methods with normative juridical approachby using secondary data as the basis for this research as from books andlegislation relating to corruption, state losses, abuse of power and other relatedliterature and also supported by directly interviews to some of prosecutor incorruption. State Apparatus policy should be based law and legislation. Agovernment official is prohibited do abuse of power that violate the statutoryprovisions. On the other hand the government official also granted the right offreedom in making decisions for the public good even if the law does not yet setsuch, the government official can make policy based on the Good GovernancePrinciples. However, if the such policy has element of mens rea (malice) and thereis deliberate and realized then the policies of the State Apparatus may be subjectto responsibility in corruption. If the conduct did not have element mens rea thenhis conduct entered into the administrative law or civil law. At this time the policyof the State Apparatus has been included in the category of criminalization incorruption. This occurs because of an error in understanding where state losses inplace as the primary evidence of corruption has occurred for his conduct againstthe law or abuse of power while his conduct without being followed by thecorrupt elements. Therefore, there are cases of state losses caused toadministrative error or fraud, or because of defective juridical. To publication ofLaw No. 30 Year 2014 on the State Administration as a form protection to thecriminalization of the decision and / or conduct of State Apparatus in which thereis no element of corruptive]"

"ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas tentang politik hukum dalam upaya kriminalisasi beragam jenis substansi berbahaya. Peneliti mengaitkan antara kerangka teori kebijakan kriminal dengan politik hukum dalam melihat kebijakan penanggulangan penyalahgunaan substansi berbahaya. Dengan menggunakan teknik pengumpulan data primer, peneliti mewawancarai sejumlah pihak yang paham dan terlibat dalam proses pembentukan kebijakan, seperti Kementerian Kesehatan, Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan, Badan Narkotika Nasional, dan Polri. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah peneliti melihat adanya keterkaitan antara politik hukum dengan penetapan kebijakan kriminal melalui pembentukan Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Nomor 13 Tahun 2014 tentang Perubahan Penggolongan Narkotika. Tidak hanya itu, perbedaan respon Pemerintah dalam upaya kriminalisasi substansi berbahaya pun tercermin dalam kebijakan kriminal yang diterapkan.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses the legal policy to criminalize many kinds of hazardous substances. Researcher used criminal policy and legal policy as a theoretical framework to see eradication of dangerous substances abuse policy. By using primary data collection techniques, the researcher interviewed several informants who understand and involved in forming the policies, such as Indonesia Ministry of Health Republic of Indonesia (Kementerian Kesehatan RI), National Narcotics Board (BNN), National Agency for Drug and Food Control (BPOM), and Indonesia National Police (Polri).The results showed that there was a relationship between the politics of law and criminal policy through the establishment of Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Nomor 13 Tahun 2014 tentang Perubahan Penggolongan Narkotika. Moreover the difference of the government responses to criminalize any hazardous substances also seen in the criminal policy applied."

"Kajian ini membahas batasan kriminalisasi terhadap wartawan dalam melaksanakan kegiatan jurnalistik. Terdapat dua prinsip dasar jurnalistik yang harus diperhatikan, yaitu menyediakan informasi yang diperlukan oleh publik dan memberikan publik informasi yang sebenar-benarnya, sehingga wartawan harus diberikan jaminan atas independensinya. Namun, permasalahan yang terjadi saat ini adalah banyak oknum yang menyalahgunakan profesi wartawan, sehingga berdampak pada wartawan yang sebenarnya. Permasalahan lainnya, kepatuhan wartawan terhadap Kode Etik Jurnalistik masih rendah, yang berdampak pada rentannya wartawan untuk dikriminalisasi. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini mengkaji sistem pers yang dianut oleh Indonesia saat ini; batasan kriminalisasi terhadap wartawan dalam melaksanakan kegiatan jurnalistik; dan penegakan hukum pidana dalam penyelesaian kasus pers. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode doktrinal dengan mengkaji secara sistematis mengenai aturan hukum, putusan kasus, prinsip, konsep, teori, doktrin, institusi hukum, masalah hukum, dan isu mengenai pers. Hasil kajian menemukan bahwa sistem pers yang berlaku di Indonesia saat ini adalah pers bertanggungjawab bebas yang berarti hanya pers yang bertanggungjawab (dalam hal perizinan) yang dapat diberikan kebebasan. Batasan kriminalisasi wartawan dalam melaksanakan kegiatan jurnalistik di Indonesia saat ini, diantaranya apabila terdapat laporan mengenai kegiatan jurnalistik atau produk jurnalistik dari wartawan yang tergabung dalam perusahaan pers berbentuk badan hukum atau terdapat laporan terhadap perusahaan pers berbadan hukum, maka penyelesaiannya menggunakan UU Pers. Laporan yang masuk akan dikomunikasikan dan dikoordinasikan dengan Dewan Pers sesuai Nota Kesepahaman antara Kepolisian dan Dewan Pers; apabila wartawan yang tergabung di perusahaan pers berbentuk badan hukum tanpa sadar lalai dalam melaksanakan kegiatan jurnalistik kemudian melanggar kepentingan seseorang sehingga menimbulkan kebahayaan, maka diselesaikan dengan UU Pers; semakin suatu produk jurnalistik atau kegiatan jurnalistik mengakibatkan kebahayaan langsung secara fisik dan individual, maka semakin kuat alasan untuk mengkriminalisasi wartawan; semakin jelas niat jahat/buruknya perbuatan wartawan, maka semakin kuat alasan untuk mengkriminalisasi; dan apabila menimbulkan public wrong, maka semakin kuat alasan untuk mengkriminalisasi. Hasil penelitian juga menunjukkan terjadi disparitas dari keempat putusan tersebut dan perbedaan pandangan mengenai penyelesaian kasus pers antara kepolisian, kejaksaan, dan berbagai instansi yang bersangkutan.

---

This paper discusses the limits of criminalization against journalists in journalistic activities. Two fundamental principles of journalism must be considered, namely, providing information required by the public and providing the public with truthful information, so journalists must be guaranteed their independence. However, the current problem is that many people abuse journalism, which affects the journalists. Another issue is that journalists' compliance with the Journalistic Code of Ethics is still low, which impacts journalists' vulnerability to criminalization. Therefore, this study examines the press system adopted by Indonesia today; the limits of criminalization against journalists in journalistic activities; and criminal law enforcement in resolving press cases. The method used in this research is the doctrinal method, which systematically examines legal rules, case decisions, principles, concepts, theories, doctrines, legal institutions, legal problems, and issues regarding the press. The study found that the current press system in Indonesia is a free, responsible press, which means that only an accountable press (in terms of licensing) can be given freedom. The limitations on the criminalization of journalists in carrying out journalistic activities in Indonesia currently include reports on journalistic activities or journalistic products from journalists who are members of press companies in the form of legal entities or reports on press companies in the form of legal entities; then the resolution uses the Press Law. The incoming report will be communicated and coordinated with the Press Council through the Memorandum of Understanding between the Police and the Press Council; If journalists who are members of a press company in the form of a legal entity are unknowingly negligent in carrying out journalistic activities and then violate someone's interests, causing harm, then it is resolved by the Press Law; the more a journalistic product or journalistic activity causes direct physical and individual harm, the stronger the reason to criminalize journalists; the more precise the evil/bad intent of the journalist's actions, the stronger the reason to criminalize; and if it causes public wrong, the stronger the reason to criminalize. The results also show disparities between the four verdicts and different views on the resolution of press cases between the Police, the prosecutor's office, and various agencies concerned."