Plea Bargaining as a Solution for Criminal Case Backlog in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/fjg0a447Keywords:
Plea Bargaining, Criminal Case Backlog, CourtAbstract
The criminal justice system in Indonesia has not been able to overcome the criminal case backlog in courts. Besides the report from the Supreme Court about the large backlog of criminal cases in judicial institutions, there was also research that showed that judges in Indonesia tend to arrive at guilty verdicts on criminal acts with minor criminal charges (sanction under 5 years). The concept of plea bargaining, which has been known and applied in several countries, will also be included in Article 198, paragraph (5), and 199 of the Draft of Criminal Procedure Code (RKUHAP) in Indonesia, which will be made law. Although non-explicit verb is named as plea bargaining, the spirit of these articles is similar to the plea bargaining system, which has been practiced in many countries and is considered successful in overcoming the criminal case backlog in courts; therefore, the study uses a comparative study of the plea bargaining system in several countries and also uses a normative research method and is carried out by using the statutory approach through a review of laws and regulations as well as regulations relating to the issue discussed. Legal materials are obtained from the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and the Draft of Criminal Procedure Code (RKUHAP), which has been in the final discussion at the House of Representatives and Government, and in addition, the secondary legal materials are obtained from books, journals, and other literature. Meanwhile, the data collection technique used is library research by examining legal materials relevant to the research discussion.
Downloads
References
[1] Annual Report of The Supreme Court of Indonesia in 2017 in The Supreme Court Directory, 2 February
2020.
[2] Alschuler, Albert W. (1981). The Changing Plea Bargaining Debate. California Law Review, 69, 652.
[3] Alschuler, Albert W. (1979). Plea Bargaining And Its History. Columbia Law Review, 79(1), 5-6.
[4] Arief, Barda Nawawi. (2007). Masalah Penegakan Hukum dan Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Dalam
Penanggulangan Kejahatan (Law Enforcement Problem in Criminal Prevention). Jakarta: Kencana, 82-86.
[5] Atmasasmita, Romli. (1996). Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Perspektif Eksistensialisme dan Abolisionisme
(Criminal Justice System: The Existentialism and Abolitionism Perspectives). Bandung: Binacipta, 112.
[6] Black's Law Dictionary with Pronunciations. (1990). Boston: St. Paul. Minn West Group, (6), 1152.
[7] Del Vale, Gaby. (2017). “Most criminal cases end in plea bargains, not trials”, (On-line), available at
https://theoutline.com/post/2066/most-criminal-cases-end-in-plea-bargains-not-trials, (accessed on 12
February 2020).
[8] Easterbrook, Frank H. (1983). Criminal Procedure as a Market System, Journal of Legal Studies, 12, 289-332.
[9] Effendi, Tolib. (2015) Prinsip Oportunitas dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia, in Bunga Rampai
Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia (The Principle of Opportunity in Indonesian Criminal Justice System in
Conclusion of Indonesian Republic Attorney). Jakarta: Badan Penerbit Fakultas Hukum Universitas
Indonesia, 322.
[10] Flynn, Asher & Fitz-Gibbon, Kate. (2011). Bargaining with Defensive Homicide Examining Victoria
Secretive Plea Bargaining System Post-Law Reform. Melbourne University Law Review, 911.
[11] Garoupa, Nuno., & Stephen, Frank H. (2008). Why Plea-Bargaining Fails to Achieve Results in So many
Criminal Justice Systems: A New Framework for Assessment. School of Law Texas A & M University,
Maastricht Journal Eur. & Comp., 15, 324.
[12] Hughes. (1980-1981). Pleas Without Bargains, Journal Rutgers Law Review, 33, 753.
[13] Karper, Hazel B. (1979). Introduction to the Criminal Justice System. West Publishing Company, (2), 185.
[14] Langbein, John H. (1979). Understanding the Short History of Plea Bargaining. Yale Law School: Faculty
Scholarship, 3.
[15] Lynch, Timothy. (2003). The Case Against Plea Bargaining. Cato Institute: Project on Criminal Justice, 1.
[16] Mather. (1974). Some Determinants of the Method of Case Disposition: Decision-Making by Public
Defenders in Los Angeles. Law & Social Review, 8, 187.
[17] Maulana, Aby. (2015). Konsep Pengakuan Bersalah Terdakwa Pada “Jalur Khusus” Menurut RUU
KUHAP dan Perbandingannya Dengan Praktek Plea Bargaining di Beberapa Negara (The Concept of Plea
of Guilt Through „Special Path‟” According to RKUHAP and Its Comparison With the Practice of Plea
Bargaining in Some Countries), Jurnal Cita Hukum, FSH UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 3(1), 43.
[18] Mertokusumo, Sudikno. (2006). Hukum Acara Perdata Indonesia (Indonesia Private Procedure Law).
Yogyakarta: Liberty, 181.
[19] Ramadhan, Choky R., Manurung, Fransiscus., Saputro, Adery Ardhan., Reza, Aulia Ali., & Pantouw,
Evandri, G. (2015). Konsep dan Penerapan Plea Barganing di Beberapa Negara (The Concept and
Application of Plea Bargaining in Some Countries), Jakarta, Jurnal Teropong MaPPI FHUI, 3, 79.
[20] Ramadhan, Choky R. (2014) Peningkatan Efisiensi Peradilan Melalui Mekanisme Jalur Khusus Dalam
RKUHAP (Improvement of Judicial Efficiency through the Special Pathway Mechanism in RKUHAP).
Jakarta, Jurnal Teropong MaPPI FHUI, 1, 6-133.
[21] Ramadhan, Choky R. (2013). Jalur Khusus & Plea Bargaining; Serupa Tapi Tak Sama (Special Path & Plea
Bargaining: Similar But Not the Same). Jakarta, Jurnal MaPPI FHUI, 4.
[22] Rhodes, William M. (1978). Plea Bargaining: Who Gains? Who Loses? Institute for Law and Social
Research, 25.
[23] Smith, Douglas A. (1987). The Plea Bargaining Controversy, The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology,
77(3), 950-951.
[24] Subekti, R. (1991). Hukum Pembuktian (Law of Proof). Jakarta: Pradnya Paramitha, 51.
[25] Strang, Robert R. (2008). More Adversarial, but Not Completely Adversarial: Reformasi of the Indonesian
Criminal Procedure Code. Journal Fordham International Law, 32(118), 210-211.
[26] The Unconstitutionality of Plea Bargaining. (1970). Harvard Law Review, 83, 1389.
[27] Tristanto, Yunizar Wahyu. (2018). Tinjauan Yuridis Penerapan Plea Bargaining Untuk Meningkatkan Efesiensi Peradilan di Indonesia (Juridical Review of the Implementation of Plea Bargaining to Improve Judicial Efficiency in Indonesia). Jurnal AHKAM, 16(2), p. 423.
[28] UTZ, PJ. (1978). Settling the Facts: Discretion and Negotiation in Criminal Courts. New York: Lexington Books, 22.
[29] Walsh, Dylan. (2017). “Why U.S. Criminal Courts Are So Dependent on Plea Bargaining,” (online), available at https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/plea-bargaining-courts-prosecutors/524112/, (accessed on 12 February 2020).
[30] Waluyo, Bambang. (2002) Pidana dan Pemidanaan (Criminal and Criminal Justice). Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 33.
[31] Zimring, F., & Frase, R. (1980). The Criminal Justice System. Little Brown Company, 498.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 AUTHOR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
