Hingga saat ini peradilan sesat (Rechterlijke Dwaling) masih terjadi di Indonesia. Peradilan sesat ini merupakan akibat dari kelalaian Hakim dalam menjalankan tugasnya. Keberadaan SEMA Nomor 09 Tahun 1976 menimbulkan kesan kebal hukum terhadap Hakim. Perihal pertanggungjawaban hakim beberapa negara telah menerapkan konsep Judicial Liability. Penelitian tesis ini memberikan jawaban terhadap tiga rumusan masalah, bagaimana pengaturan pertanggungjawaban Hakim ditinjau dari prinsip kebebasan Hakim dalam kasus peradilan sesat (Rechterlijke Dwaling) di Indonesia, bagaimana konsep Judicial Liability dalam sistem peradilan pidana di negara Italia dibandingkan dengan pertanggungjawaban hakim dalam kasus peradilan sesat (Rechterlijke Dwaling) di Indonesia, dan bagaimana konsep Judicial Liability apabila diadopsi sebagai konsep pertanggungjawaban Hakim dalam kasus peradilan sesat (Rechterlijke Dwaling) di Indonesia. Melalui penelitian hukum normatif dan dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach), serta pendekatan perbandingan (comparative approach) di dapatkan kesimpulan bahwa prinsip kebebasan Hakim harus mampu dipertanggungjawabkan oleh Hakim terutama apabila dalam menjalankan fungsinya hakim mengakibatkan peradilan sesat. Prinsip kebebasan Hakim tidak membuat Hakim boleh berbuat sesuai kehendaknya. Berkaitan dengan hal ini sistem hukum Negara Italia telah menerapkan konsep Judicial Liability sebagai bentuk pertanggungjawaban Hakim dalam hal ganti kerugian atas kerusakan yang diakibatkan kesalahan hakim. Hal demikian diatur di dalam Undang-Undang Republik Italia Nomor 117 tahun 1998 yang diperbarui dengan Undang-Undang Republik Italia Nomor 18 tahun 2015. Berdasarkan persamaan beberapa faktor konsep Judicial Liability dimungkinkan diterapkan di Indonesia sebagai bentuk pertanggungjawaban hakim. Namun dengan catatan RKUHAP terkait pemeriksaan pendahuluan segera disahkan. Demi terciptanya penegakkan hukum, dan keadilan bagi korban peradilan sesat sangat diperlukan adanya pertanggungjawaban hakim. Pencabutan SEMA Nomor 09 Tahun 1976 menjadi hal yang utama setelah disahkannya RKUHAP di Indonesia.
Until now, misscarriage of justice (Rechterlijke Dwaling) is still happening in Indonesia. This misscarriage of justice is the result of the judge's negligence in carrying out his duties. The existence of SEMA Number 09 of 1976 creates the impression of being immune to the law against judges. Regarding the accountability of judges, several countries have applied the concept of Judicial Liability. This thesis research provides answers to three problem formulations, how to regulate the responsibility of judges in terms of the principle of freedom of judges in cases of misscarriage of justice (Rechterlijke Dwaling) in Indonesia, how is the concept of Judicial Liability in the criminal justice system in Italy compared to the responsibility of judges in cases of misscarriage of justice Rechterlijke Dwaling) in Indonesia, and how is the concept of Judicial Liability when it is adopted as the concept of responsibility of judges in cases of misscarriage justice (Rechterlijke Dwaling) in Indonesia. Through normative legal research and by using a statute approach and comparative approach, it is concluded that the principle of freedom of judges must be able to be accounted for by judges, especially if in carrying out their functions the judge results in a misscarriage of justice. The principle of judge freedom does not allow the judge to act according to his will. In this regard, the Italian legal system has implemented the concept of Judicial Liability as a form of Judicial liability in terms of compensation for damages caused by judge mistakes. This is regulated in the Law of the Republic of Italy Number 117 of 1998 which is amended by the Law of the Republic of Italy Number 18 of 2015. Based on the similarity of several factors, the concept of Judicial Liability may be applied in Indonesia as a form of judge's accountability. However, with the note that the RKUHAP related to the preliminary examination was immediately passed. For the sake of law enforcement and justice for victims of misscarriage of justice, it is necessary to hold the accountability of judges. Revocation of SEMA Number 09 of 1976 became the main thing after the enactment of the RKUHAP in Indonesia. |
T-Rikha Diah Sari.pdf :: Unduh