Analisis Yuridis Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Perikanan Diperairan Laut Natuna (Studi Kasus Perkara Nomor 31 / PID.SUS - PRK/ 2015 / PN . RAN

Tarigan, Sartika Ratu Ayu (2021) Analisis Yuridis Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Perikanan Diperairan Laut Natuna (Studi Kasus Perkara Nomor 31 / PID.SUS - PRK/ 2015 / PN . RAN. Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text 171022194.pdf - Submitted Version Download (3MB)

Abstract

ABSTRACT Indonesia ranks third in capture fisheries production in the world with a value of 6.71 million tons in 2018. The challenge faced by Indonesia is the presence of large-sized foreign fish (fishing vessels and fish carriers) crowding Indonesian waters and the ZEEI Area. Implementation of the (International FishCRIME Symposium) in an effort to combat Illegal Fishing raises problems in the Proof of Fishery Crimes, among others: the first stage of Pre-prosecution (investigation), namely: frequent tug-of-war between fishery State Officials (PPNS), Navy Officers and POLRI (Article 73 paragraph 1) but the revocation of Article 14 of Law no. 5 of 1983 (ZEEI) which in the ZEEI area is the investigator of the Navy Officers, secondly at the investigation stage which has been examined by fish training and bureaucratic planning (rentut) and Thirdly at the stage of Proof of Court Session namely: establishment of a court based on Article 71 Paragraph (1) The Fisheries Law raises the Relative Competence of the Fisheries Court in accordance with the relevant district courts other than the North Jakarta, Medan, Pontianak, Bitung courts and district courts which (article 106 of the Fisheries Law) are lacking and the resource weakness of Ad hoc judges in each District Court, Appeal and Cassation do not know the ad hoc judge of fisheries. Based on the problems in terms of evidence and judge's consideration of the perpetrators, the authors are interested in analyzing the juridical evidence of criminal acts of fisheries in Natuna seas (case study NO 31 / PID.SUS –PRK / 2015 / PN. Ranai Based on the above background, the main problems examined in this study are about: How is the Process of Proving Fisheries Crime in Case no. 31 / PID.SUS –PRK / 2015 / PN . RAN and How is the Legal Consideration of the Panel of Judges in Criminal Case no. 31 / PID.SUS –PRK / 2015 / PN RAN. This type of research is normative, the method of study is to study the documents of the Ranai District Court Decision No. 31 / Pid.Sus –Prk / 2015 / PN . RAN on December 21, 2015 by elaborating the judge's decision and mentioning theories. Based on the nature of the research that the author did, it was classified as a descriptive-analytical research, namely providing accurate data regarding the problems that the authors raised in order to strengthen existing theories. From the results of the study, it can be seen that: That the process of proving in Decision No. 31 / Pid.sus –Prk / 2015 / PN . RAN uses negative evidence referring to a minimum of 2 (two) valid evidences and the judge's conviction according to article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code unless regulated in the criminal law, especially the Republic of Indonesia Law no. 45 of 2009 concerning amendments to the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 31 of 2004 starting from the pre-prosecution, prosecution and trial stages. And Legal Considerations of the Panel of Judges in Criminal Case No. 31/ PID.SUS –PRK/2015 / PN RAN there are 2 (two) categories of judges' considerations in deciding a case, namely: First, Juridical considerations and Second, Non-Juridical considerations in criminal acts with judges formulating a system for applying sanctions provisions maximum and minimum specifically refers to Article 103 of the Criminal Code and 284 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code

Actions (login required)

View Item