Basic Consideration of the Panel of Judges

Oct 13, 2025 by thesweetdesigns.com 105 views

Abstract

In the realm of Indonesian criminal law, Free Decisions (Vrijspraak) are a crucial aspect of judges' decisions in criminal cases, as stipulated in Article 191 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). This article highlights the significance of Free Decisions in ensuring justice is upheld. This study delves into Decision Number: 3212/PID.B/2007/PN.MDN, handed down by the Medan District Court, related to the defendant Kohiruddin, who was accused of committing a criminal act of theft. Initially, the Public Prosecutor charged the defendant with Article 363 (1-4E) and Article 480 (1E) of the Criminal Code. However, after going through the trial process, the panel of judges decided to free Kohiruddin.

Introduction

In the context of Indonesian criminal law, the judge's decision becomes an essential aspect in upholding justice. Free Decisions often raise questions about the feasibility of the indictment and the quality of evidence presented. This study employs an empirical juridical approach, combining the analysis of legal documents with interviews with related parties, to provide a more comprehensive picture of the basis of judges in the decision Number: 3212/PID.B/2007/PN.Mdn.

Basic Consideration of the Panel of Judges

The results showed that the main consideration of the Panel of Judges in bringing down a free decision against Kohiruddin was based on the insufficient evidence. Although there were two witnesses and one evidence submitted by the prosecutor, in an in-depth analysis, the judge found that the testimony was not convincing enough to prove the defendant's mistakes. The panel of judges considers that the indictment from the public prosecutor is obscure (obscure libel), because it does not explain the concrete role of Kohiruddin in the alleged crime.

The panel of judges' decision was influenced by the following factors:

Lack of concrete evidence: The testimony of the two witnesses was not convincing enough to prove Kohiruddin's involvement in the alleged crime.
Obscure indictment: The indictment from the public prosecutor did not explain the concrete role of Kohiruddin in the alleged crime, making it difficult for the panel of judges to make a decision.
Insufficient analysis: The panel of judges did not conduct a thorough analysis of the evidence presented, which led to the decision to free Kohiruddin.

Legal Implications and Policy Renewal

This free decision raises the issue related to the defendant's right to obtain compensation and rehabilitation. According to the Law, a person who is released from the indictment is entitled to compensation. In this case, while Kohiruddin received automatic rehabilitation after the decision was read, the right to compensation was not sued. This shows the importance of clear regulations on compensation procedures that facilitate innocent defendants in demanding their rights.

In addition, the Cassation Legal Efforts submitted by the Prosecutor to the Free Decision also raises the question of the harmonization of legislation. Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly prohibits cassation against free decisions. Therefore, one of the recommendations in this study is the need for a revision of the Criminal Procedure Code so that there is space for appropriate legal efforts to the free decision.

Conclusion

Juridical Analysis of Decision Number: 3212/PID.B/2007/PN.Mdn shows the need for a legal system that can answer the challenges and dynamics of justice. The free decision imposed on Kohiruddin reflects the importance of valid and convincing proof in a court hearing. In addition, the expansion of law and policies regarding the rights of the freed party, as well as adjustments to regulations related to legal efforts to the free decision is crucial to realize better justice in Indonesia.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made:

Revision of the Criminal Procedure Code: The Criminal Procedure Code should be revised to provide space for appropriate legal efforts to the free decision.
Clear regulations on compensation procedures: Clear regulations on compensation procedures should be established to facilitate innocent defendants in demanding their rights.
Expansion of law and policies regarding the rights of the freed party: The law and policies regarding the rights of the freed party should be expanded to ensure that they are protected and their rights are respected.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations, including:

Limited scope: The study only analyzed one case, Decision Number: 3212/PID.B/2007/PN.Mdn, and did not consider other cases that may have similar circumstances.
Limited data: The study relied on limited data, including the decision of the panel of judges and the indictment from the public prosecutor.
Limited analysis: The study did not conduct a thorough analysis of the evidence presented, which may have led to the decision to free Kohiruddin.

Future Research Directions

Future research should focus on the following areas:

In-depth analysis of the evidence presented: Future research should conduct a thorough analysis of the evidence presented in the case, including the testimony of the two witnesses and the indictment from the public prosecutor.
Comparison with other cases: Future research should compare the case analyzed in this study with other cases that may have similar circumstances to identify any patterns or trends.
Expansion of the scope of the study: Future research should expand the scope of the study to consider other cases and to analyze the impact of the free decision on the defendant and the justice system as a whole.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study provides a comprehensive analysis of the free decision imposed on Kohiruddin in Decision Number: 3212/PID.B/2007/PN.Mdn. The study highlights the importance of valid and convincing proof in a court hearing and the need for clear regulations on compensation procedures that facilitate innocent defendants in demanding their rights. The study also recommends the revision of the Criminal Procedure Code to provide space for appropriate legal efforts to the free decision.

Introduction

In our previous article, we discussed the juridical analysis of Decision Number: 3212/PID.B/2007/PN.Mdn, which involved the defendant Kohiruddin being accused of committing a criminal act of theft. The panel of judges decided to free Kohiruddin due to insufficient evidence and an obscure indictment. In this Q&A article, we will address some of the most frequently asked questions related to this case.

Q: What is a Free Decision?

A: A Free Decision is a type of decision made by a judge in a criminal case, where the defendant is released due to insufficient evidence or an obscure indictment.

Q: What are the grounds for a Free Decision?

A: The grounds for a Free Decision include:

Insufficient evidence: The evidence presented is not convincing enough to prove the defendant's involvement in the alleged crime.
Obscure indictment: The indictment from the public prosecutor does not explain the concrete role of the defendant in the alleged crime.
Lack of concrete evidence: The testimony of witnesses is not convincing enough to prove the defendant's involvement in the alleged crime.

Q: What are the implications of a Free Decision?

A: A Free Decision has several implications, including:

Release of the defendant: The defendant is released from custody.
Automatic rehabilitation: The defendant is automatically rehabilitated after the decision is read.
Right to compensation: The defendant has the right to compensation, but this right was not sued in this case.

Q: What are the recommendations for the revision of the Criminal Procedure Code?

A: The recommendations for the revision of the Criminal Procedure Code include:

Providing space for appropriate legal efforts to the Free Decision: The Criminal Procedure Code should be revised to provide space for appropriate legal efforts to the Free Decision.
Clear regulations on compensation procedures: Clear regulations on compensation procedures should be established to facilitate innocent defendants in demanding their rights.
Expansion of law and policies regarding the rights of the freed party: The law and policies regarding the rights of the freed party should be expanded to ensure that they are protected and their rights are respected.

Q: What are the limitations of this study?

A: The limitations of this study include:

Limited scope: The study only analyzed one case, Decision Number: 3212/PID.B/2007/PN.Mdn, and did not consider other cases that may have similar circumstances.
Limited data: The study relied on limited data, including the decision of the panel of judges and the indictment from the public prosecutor.
Limited analysis: The study did not conduct a thorough analysis of the evidence presented, which may have led to the decision to free Kohiruddin.

Q: What are the future research directions?

A: The future research directions include:

In-depth analysis of the evidence presented: Future research should conduct a thorough analysis of the evidence presented in the case, including the testimony of the two witnesses and the indictment from the public prosecutor.
Comparison with other cases: Future research should compare the case analyzed in this study with other cases that may have similar circumstances to identify any patterns or trends.
Expansion of the scope of the study: Future research should expand the scope of the study to consider other cases and to analyze the impact of the Free Decision on the defendant and the justice system as a whole.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this Q&A article provides a comprehensive overview of the juridical analysis of Decision Number: 3212/PID.B/2007/PN.Mdn. The article addresses some of the most frequently asked questions related to this case and provides recommendations for the revision of the Criminal Procedure Code.