arti kesalahan kuliah UNNES

Summary

The transcript explores the concept of 'kesalahan' (wrongdoing) in the context of criminal law, discussing various legal theories related to responsibility and guilt. It delves into the dualistic approach of crime, distinguishing between 'tindak pidana' (criminal act) and 'kesalahan' (error or guilt). The discussion contrasts indeterminism, which argues that free will is essential for guilt, with determinism, which suggests that humans must be responsible for their actions regardless of free will. The importance of understanding these legal theories, including the concept of 'kesalahan' in its various interpretations, is emphasized, connecting legal responsibility with the mental state of the perpetrator.

Takeaways

• 😀 The concept of 'kesalahan' (mistake or fault) in criminal law is discussed in terms of personal responsibility and the capacity to be held accountable for actions.
• 😀 There is a distinction between dualistic and monistic theories in criminal law, with dualism separating actions from fault (kesalahan).
• 😀 The principle 'no crime without fault' is emphasized, meaning a person cannot be penalized if there is no fault (kesalahan) in their actions.
• 😀 The theory of 'no penalty without law' is explained through the 'legalitas' principle, which connects penalties to established laws.
• 😀 The discussion introduces two schools of thought regarding free will: determinism (no free will) and indeterminism (free will exists). Both have different implications for criminal responsibility.
• 😀 Indeterminism argues that if there is no free will, there is no fault, meaning individuals can't be held accountable for actions they didn't choose freely.
• 😀 Determinism posits that humans must take responsibility for their actions, even if free will is limited, as they live within regulated systems.
• 😀 A third viewpoint suggests that individuals can be penalized if there is a law prohibiting the act, regardless of whether the person exercised free will or not.
• 😀 The role of 'kesalahan' (mistake/fault) is further clarified by distinguishing between objective and subjective elements in criminal law: objective is related to the act, while subjective refers to the mental state.
• 😀 The script outlines that 'kesalahan' includes the ability to be held accountable, intentionality (sengaja), negligence (kealpaan), and the absence of excuses, all of which must be present for criminal liability.

Q & A

What is the key concept discussed regarding 'kesalahan' (wrongdoing)?

The concept of 'kesalahan' refers to fault or wrongdoing in criminal law. It involves the idea that an individual must be responsible for their actions, and their responsibility is based on their mental state or intent. Without fault, a person cannot be held criminally responsible.

How does the dualistic theory of criminal law relate to 'kesalahan' and 'pertanggungjawaban pidana' (criminal responsibility)?

According to the dualistic theory, 'kesalahan' is linked to 'pertanggungjawaban pidana' (criminal responsibility). If there is no 'kesalahan' (fault), there cannot be criminal responsibility. This is rooted in the principle 'nullum crimen sine culpa' – no crime without fault.

What is the principle of 'nullum crimen sine culpa' and how does it apply to criminal law?

'Nullum crimen sine culpa' means 'no crime without fault.' This principle underlines the idea that criminal liability can only be assigned if the individual has committed an act with a degree of fault, either intentional or negligent.

What are the two main philosophical perspectives on human will discussed in the script?

The two perspectives are indeterminism and determinism. Indeterminism argues that humans have free will, and without it, there is no fault. In contrast, determinism asserts that human behavior is governed by rules, and thus, individuals are responsible for their actions, even if their free will is constrained.

What is the third view on human responsibility discussed in the transcript?

The third view is based on the idea that criminal responsibility is not tied to free will but is governed by law. If a person violates a law, such as theft under Article 362 of the Penal Code, they can be criminally responsible regardless of their free will or intent.

What is the relationship between 'kesalahan' (wrongdoing) and 'kehendak bebas' (free will) in the context of criminal law?

The relationship lies in determining whether an individual’s action is considered criminal based on their free will. Some views argue that without free will, there is no fault, while others assert that responsibility exists regardless of free will if the law is violated.

What are the three meanings of 'kesalahan' as explained in the transcript?

The three meanings of 'kesalahan' are: 1) 'kesalahan' in the broadest sense, equivalent to criminal responsibility (pertanggungjawaban pidana or PJP), 2) 'kesalahan' in a narrower sense, including intentional acts and negligence, and 3) 'kesalahan' in the strictest sense, which refers to negligence alone.

How does 'kesalahan' in the broadest sense differ from its narrower and strict meanings?

'Kesalahan' in the broadest sense includes all aspects of criminal responsibility, encompassing the ability to be held accountable, the mental relationship with the act (whether intentional or negligent), and the absence of excuses. In contrast, the narrower sense focuses on specific intentions or negligence, and the strictest sense is confined to negligence only.

What is the legal significance of 'kemampuan bertanggung jawab' (ability to take responsibility) in determining 'kesalahan'?

The 'ability to take responsibility' is a key element in determining whether someone is at fault. It implies that an individual must have the mental capacity to understand and be accountable for their actions. Without this ability, a person cannot be held criminally responsible.

What are the key elements that make up 'kesalahan' in the broadest sense as described in the transcript?

The key elements that make up 'kesalahan' in the broadest sense are: 1) the ability to take responsibility ('kemampuan bertanggung jawab'), 2) the mental relationship to the act (whether intentional or negligent), and 3) the absence of any justifiable excuses (no 'alasan pemaaf').