Ananda Putri, Septina (2022) Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Tindak Pidana Turut Serta Melakukan Pengrusakan Barang Yang Dilakukan Secara Bersama-sama ( Studi Putusan Nomor 20/pid.b/2021/pn.pbr ). Other thesis, Fakultas Hukum.

Text 191010388.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (1MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The activity of destroying goods owned by other people or public facilities is a crime where the action will be detrimental to the owner of the goods, and also the general public where the damaged goods are part of public facilities which are the rights of everyone. Damage to goods can result in loss of function of the goods so that they cannot be used again. In addition, goods that are part of shared property or public facilities, if damaged, will cause harm to many people. This research aims to find out how the application of the Material Criminal Law and the judge's consideration of the crime of participating in the destruction of goods was carried out jointly in decision Number 20/Pid.B/2021/PN.Pbr. By using the type of normative research, and in the preparation using the nature of descriptive research. The nature of this descriptive research is to provide a detailed and clear description of the sentencing of the perpetrators of the crime of participating in the damage to goods in case number 20/Pid.B/2021/PN.Pbr, as well as the judge's considerations in imposing a sentence. Knowing the application of criminal law by the Legal Panels of the Pekanbaru District Court case Number 20/Pid.B/2021/PN.Pbr, the material criminal law was applied appropriately by the Panel of Judges as the defendant was legally and convincingly proven to have committed a crime together damaging the regulated goods in Article 406 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, Jo. Article 55 paragraph (1) 1st of the Criminal Code. The facts revealed during the trial and valid evidence, such as witness testimony, evidence and the defendant's statement, show that the defendant's actions are in accordance with the formulation of the offense and the elements of the applicable article. However, regarding the judge's formulation of declaring that Defendant Almizar was legally and convincingly proven guilty of committing the crime of "participating in vandalism”. Bearing in mind that the Defendant Almizar did not only participate in the vandalism (medepleger) but was included in the participation as the one who ordered the vandalism (doen pleger)

Actions (login required)

View Item