Konsep saksi mahkota yang dilaksanakan di peradilan Indonesia saat ini masih menimbulkan kontroversi dan perdebatan dikalangan praktisi maupun akademisi, karena memang sesungguhnya belum ada definisi normatif tentang saksi mahkota termuat dalam undang-undang. Apabila dibandingkan dengan konsep saksi mahkota di negara lain, ternyata terdapat perbedaan yang sangat mendasar yaitu pada konsep di Eropa dan Amerika sebelum diterapkan saksi mahkota harus dilakukan terlebih dahulu kesepakatan kerjasama atara penuntut umum dan saksi mahkota dalam penuntutan tindak pidana, sedangkang di Indonesia lebih mengartikan saksi mahkota sebagai kesaksian saling menyaksikan antara sesama pelaku tindak pidana penyertaan dalam tindak pidana untuk tujuan sempurnaya pembuktian. Tujuan dari penelitian ini mengkaji mengenai penerapan saksi mahkota dalam peradilan pidana dan memperbandingkanya dengan pelaksanaan saksi mahkota di Belanda dan Amerika Serikat serta melihat paradigma saksi mahkota menurut hukum acara pidana yang akan datang. Metode penelitian yang digunaka yuridis normatif. Dari hasil penelitian diperoleh suatu kenyataan konsep saksi mahkota yang dilaksanakan dalam peradilan pidana di Indonesia saat ini melanggar asas non self incrimination. Peranan saksi mahkota dibutuhkan dalam menghadapi permasalahn kurangnya alat bukti saksi pada penyertaan dalam tindak pidana. Penerapan konsep saksi mahkota dalam peradilan saat ini hanya mewujudkan suatu kepastian hukum, sehingga kurang memperhatikan cara memperoleh alat bukti (exclusionary rule), dan pentinya alat bukti yang saling menguatkan (corroborating evidence) dalam penerapan saksi mahkota. Secara subtansi dalam RUU KUHAP terjadi perubahan sangat signifikat mengenai konsep saksi mahkota dengan menyerap konsep saksi mahkota yang di kenal di Eropa dan Amerika Serikat.

---

The concept of crown witness implemented in Indonesian courts is still causing controversy and debates among practitioners and academicians, because actually there has been no normative definition of crown witness contained in the legislation. When compared with the concept of crown witness in other countries, there are fundamental differences. In Europe and the USA before crown witness is applied, a cooperation agreement shall be made first between the public prosecutor and the crown witness in a criminal proceeding; whereas in Indonesia what is referred to as crown witness is a witness who came from suspects or defendants and testify against other suspects/perpetrators in a crime in order to obtain perfect/complete evidence. The purpose of this research is to examine the application of crown witness in the criminal proceedings and compare it with the implementation of crown witness in the Netherlands and the United States as well as to see the crown witnesses paradigm in accordance with the law of criminal procedure which will be applicable in the future. The research method employed is judicial normative. Based on the research findings it is discovered that the concept of crown witness in criminal proceedings in Indonesia today violates the principle of non-self incrimination. The role of crown witnesses is required as a consequence of lack of evidence of witnesses in the participation (deelneming) in a crime. The application of the crown witness concept in court today is only to realize the rule of law so it does not take into consideration the manner in obtaining evidence (exclusionary rule) and the importance of corroborating evidence in the application of crown witnesses. In substance, the Draft of the Criminal Procedure Code experiences very significant changes in the concept of crown witness by absorbing the concept of crown witnesses which is known in Europe and the United States.