LEGAL PROTECTION FOR DEATH PENALTY CONVICTS WHO ARE NOT EXECUTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PERMANENT LEGAL FORCE

 

LEGAL PROTECTION FOR DEATH PENALTY CONVICTS WHO ARE NOT EXECUTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PERMANENT LEGAL FORCE

Abdul Azis Muhammad
Prija Djatmika
Dhiana Puspitawati 
Nurini Aprilianda 

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to determine the concept of legal protection for death penalty convicts who are not executed immediately after permanent legal force in the future. This research is a normative legal research with the approach of Law, History, Comparison, Philosophy and Cases. The legal materials used are primary, secondary and tertiary with analytical techniques using perspective analysis. The results of this research indicate that at the Judicial Review stage, the Criminal Code Procedure must set a time limit for submitting a judicial review application since the decision has permanent legal force (inkracht van gewijsde). The execution of the judge’s decision that imposes the death penalty on the convict who submits the application for judicial review and clemency must be strictly regulated.

Keywords: Human Right, Legal Protection, death penalty convict, legal force

JEL Codes: K15, K23, K38, K42

DOI: 10.37708/el.swu.v3i2.7

CITE AS:

Muhammad, A. A., Djatmika, P., Puspitawati, D., & Aprilianda, N. (2021). Legal protection for death penalty convicts who are not executed immediately after the permanent legal force. Economics & Law, 3(2), 72-84. DOI: 10.37708/el.swu.v3i2.7
Muhammad, Abdul Azis, Prija Djatmika, Dhiana Puspitawati, and Nurini Aprilianda. 2021. “Legal Protection for Death Penalty Convicts Who Are Not Executed Immediately after the Permanent Legal Force.” Economics & Law 3 (2): 72–84. https://doi.org/10.37708/el.swu.v3i2.7.
Muhammad, A. A., Djatmika, P., Puspitawati, D., & Aprilianda, N., 2021. Legal protection for death penalty convicts who are not executed immediately after the permanent legal force. Economics & Law, 3(2), pp. 72-84. doi: 10.37708/el.swu.v3i2.7
Muhammad, Abdul Azis, Prija Djatmika, Dhiana Puspitawati, and Nurini Aprilianda.“Legal Protection for Death Penalty Convicts Who Are Not Executed Immediately after the Permanent Legal Force.” Economics & Law, vol 3, no.2, 2021,pp. 72–84. doi: 10.37708/el.swu.v3i2.7

LEGAL PROTECTION FOR DEATH PENALTY CONVICTS WHO ARE NOT EXECUTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PERMANENT LEGAL FORCE

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Anjari, W. (2015). Penjatuhan Pidana Mati Di Indonesia Dalam Perspektif Hak Asasi Manusia. E-Journal Widya Yustisia, 1(2): 107-115. Retrieved from https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/247155-penjatuhan-pidana-mati-di-indonesia-dala-dc4b10c5.pdf

  2. Apriani, L.R. (2010). Penerapan Filsafat Pemidanaan Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jurnal Yudisia, 3(1), 1-14.

  3. Arifin, Z. (2009). Eksistensi Pengaturan Pidana Mati Dan Pelaksanaannya Dalam Sistem Pidana Di Indonesia. Bandung, Universitas Padjadjaran.

  4. Aryanto, J. (2011). Legitimasi Hukuman Mati Di Indonesia Dalam Kaitannya Dengan Hak Asasi Manusia. Adil Jurnal Hukum, 2(2): 49-56. Retrieved from http://lib.law.ugm.ac.id/ojs/index.php/ajh/article/view/1393

  5. Diantha, I M.P. (2016). Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif Dalam Justifikasi Teori Hukum. Jakarta, Prenada Media Group.

  6. Eddyono, S.P. & Wagiman, W. (2008). Catatan Atas Penggunaan Pidana Mati Di Indonesia. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 4(4), 89-93.

  7. Kiger, P. J. (2021, May 19). How Presidential Pardons Work. Retrieved from https://people.howstuffworks.com/presidential-pardon.htm

  8. Manalu, L. R., Sinambela, C. T. N., & Manalu, L. R. (2010). Hukum acara pidana dari segi pembelaan. Jakarta, Indonesia: Novindo Pustaka Mandiri.

  9. Marzuki, P.M. (2010). Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta, Kencana.

  10. Sahetapy, J. E. (2007). Pidana Mati Dalam Negara Pancasila. Bandung, Citra Aditya Bakti.

  11. Sapardjaja, K. E. (2007). Permasalahan Pidana Mati Dewasa Ini Di Indonesia. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 4(4),19-34. Retrieved from https://perpustakaan.kpk.go.id/index.php?p=show_detail&id=3766.

  12. Setiono, (2004). Rule Of Law (supremasi hukum). Surakarta, Universitas Sebelas Maret.

  13. Sisanthe, J. (2010, December 27). Aquino: Govt reviewing guidelines for executive clemency. GMA News Online. Retrieved from https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/209195/aquino-govt-reviewing-guidelines-for-executive-clemency/story/, (accessed on 14 December, 2020).

  14. Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2011). Penelitian Hukum Normatif Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Jakarta, Rajawali Pers.

  15. Sugiharto, G. (2008, Desember 25). Sistem Hukum Philipina. Gats_shmh. Retrieved from http://wwwgats.blogspot.com/2008/12/sistem-hukum-philipina.html, (accessed on 24, December, 2020).

  16. Supandi, H. (2008). Eksistensi Pidana Mati Dalam Proses Penegakan Hukum Di Indonesia. Journal of European Studies, 4(2).

  17. Wajayanta, T. (2014). Asas Kepastian Hukum, Keadilan Dan Kemanfaatan Dalam Kaitannya Dengan Putusan Kepailitan Pengadilan Niaga. Jurnal Dinamika Hukum, 14(2), 216-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2014.14.2.291.

  18. Wantu, F. M. (2007). Antinomi Dalam Penegakan Hukum Oleh Hakim. Mimbar Hukum, 19(3), 387-398. https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.19070.

  19. Zhang, L. (2019, November 5). In Japan: Pardon System Debated | In Custodia Legis: Law Librarians of Congress. Library of Congress. Retrieved from https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2019/11/in-japan-pardon-system-debated/, (accessed on 24 December, 2020).