Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKSince the signature of Law 31/2004 about Fishery and its revision through Law 45/2009, Indonesia had established 10 (ten) Fishery Courts. The first five, embedded in the distric courts of North Jakarta, Medan, Pontianak, Bitung, and Tual, were established on 2007; two, embedded in the distric courts of Tanjung Pinang and Ranai, were established on 2010; and the other three, embedded in the distric courts of Ambon, Sorong, and Merauke, were established on 2014. Originally intended to speed up the proceeding of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing; thes courts where instead considered taking too long to prosecute the perpetrators. As theresult, many illegal vessels were sunked without trial process. Quoting Susi Pudjiastuti Indonesia's current Maritime and Fisheries Minister it was done to cut the decision-making chain. One of the reasons behind this slow process is there are too many institutions involved in its criminal procedure. Therefore, this paper attempts to explain the regulatory framework of Indonesia fishery court including their procedural law and clarify the scope of authority possessed by each institution in charge of criminal procedure investigation, prosecution, and adjudication. Using secondary data (legal materials, books, dictionary, articles from legal journals, etc.), this paper will give light to the shortcomings of current fisherycourt and criminal procedure in Indonesia which can be used as evaluation materials for future revision."

"Penelitian ini dibuat untuk mengkaji kedudukan pelaku tindak pidana yang bekerjasama dengan aparat penegak hukum dalam rangka mempermudah terbongkarnya suatu tindak pidana baik dalam bentuk mengakui kesalahan perbuatannya, memberikan bukti-bukti atau keterangan mengenai keterlibatan orang lain dalam tindak pidana (dikenal sebagai Saksi Mahkota, Justice Collaborator dan Whistleblower) dikaitkan dengan insentif yang diberikan dan sepatutnya diberikan oleh aparat penegak hukum, serta proses pemberian insentif tersebut. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah bahwa pelaku yang bekerjasama dengan aparat penegak hukum pada dasarnya belum sepenuhnya dilindungi dikarenakan regulasi yang belum memadai dan masih terdapat kelemahan secara kelembagaan dalam memberikan insentif bagi pelaku yang bekerjasama.

---

This research made to discussed about position of criminal subject who cooperate with law enforcement agency in order to help breaking a case with giving a plead guilty of his act or direction about evidences or information of others involevement (known as Crown Witness, Justice Collaborator and Whistleblower) and relevancy with an incentives they got and properly deserved provided by law enforcement agency as a retain of their cooperation and the process of incentives implementation. This research concluded that the regulation not utterly protect cooperative criminal subject and institutionally there is any weaknesses on giving protection for cooperative criminal subject. "