ALASAN PENGHAPUS PIDANA #IntisariHukumPidana 11

Summary

This video provides an in-depth explanation of criminal liability exemptions under Indonesian law, distinguishing between justifying reasons (alasan pembenar) and excusing reasons (alasan pemaaf). It compares provisions in the old and new Criminal Codes (KUHP), detailing how justifying reasons remove the unlawfulness of an act, while excusing reasons remove the offender's culpability. Key examples include acting under legal orders, self-defense, emergencies, duress, and actions by minors under 12. The video also highlights new additions and structural changes in the KUHP, clarifying legal interpretations, procedural requirements, and the conditions under which these exemptions apply, providing a comprehensive guide for understanding criminal responsibility.

Takeaways

• 😀 The concept of 'alasan penghapus pidana' (reasons for eliminating criminal liability) refers to facts or circumstances that remove the criminal liability of a person for an unlawful act.
• 😀 There are two main types: 'alasan pembenar' (justifying circumstances) that remove the unlawfulness of an act, and 'alasan pemaaf' (excusing circumstances) that remove the culpability of the person.
• 😀 Justifying circumstances include performing a lawful command, carrying out a lawful official duty, emergency situations, self-defense, and absence of unlawfulness.
• 😀 Excusing circumstances include children under 12 years old, coercion (overmacht), excessive self-defense, and carrying out orders without proper authority but in good faith.
• 😀 KUHP (Criminal Code) differentiates between general reasons, which apply to all crimes, and specific reasons, which apply only to certain crimes.
• 😀 In the old KUHP, some justifying and excusing circumstances were combined in one chapter, while in the new KUHP, they are clearly separated into distinct sections.
• 😀 Emergency situations are more explicitly defined in the new KUHP and include conflicts between legal interests, legal obligations, or public interest in life-threatening situations.
• 😀 Self-defense must meet conditions of immediacy, subsidiarity, limited legal interests, and proportionality to be considered a justifying circumstance.
• -
• 😀 Coercion is classified into absolute coercion (mutlak) where the person has no choice, and relative coercion (relatif) where threats or pressures make resistance unreasonable.
• 😀 The new KUHP introduces 'absence of unlawfulness' as an additional justifying circumstance not present in the old KUHP, emphasizing that an act must be unlawful to be punishable.
• 😀 Children under 12 years old are now explicitly recognized as incapable of criminal responsibility, and previously included reasons like incapacity are reorganized under general criminal responsibility rather than as excusing circumstances.
• 😀 Performing an official order without authority may excuse liability if the person acted in good faith, believed the order was lawful, and was within their work scope.

Q & A

What is the definition of 'alasan penghapus pidana' (grounds for exoneration) in Indonesian criminal law?

'Alasan penghapus pidana' refers to facts or circumstances that remove criminal liability from a person who has committed an act prohibited by law, meaning the person cannot be punished for that act.

What are the two main types of alasan penghapus pidana?

The two main types are: 1) Alasan pembenar (justifying reasons) which remove the unlawful nature of an act, and 2) Alasan pemaaf (excusing reasons) which remove the culpability of the person.

Can you provide examples of alasan pembenar?

Examples include: acting under compulsion of law (perintah undang-undang), performing a duty of office (perintah jabatan yang sah), emergency situations (keadaan darurat), self-defense (pembelaan terpaksa), and absence of unlawful nature (ketiadaan sifat melawan hukum).

What distinguishes KUHP Baru from KUHP Lama regarding alasan penghapus pidana?

In KUHP Baru, reasons are separated into 'alasan pembenar' and 'alasan pemaaf' in different parts of the code, while KUHP Lama grouped reasons for exoneration, aggravation, and mitigation in one chapter.

How does KUHP Baru define 'keadaan darurat' (emergency)?

'Keadaan darurat' is a situation where someone performs a prohibited act due to urgent necessity, such as choosing whom to save in life-threatening situations, medical emergencies, or prioritizing property in fire rescue.

What are the four conditions for self-defense (pembelaan terpaksa) under KUHP Baru?

1) There is an immediate unlawful attack, 2) No other way to avoid it (subsidiarity), 3) Only protecting legally defined interests (life, honor, property), 4) Proportionality between defense and attack is maintained.

What is the significance of the new alasan pembenar 'ketiadaan sifat melawan hukum' in KUHP Baru?

It recognizes that an act must be objectively unlawful to be criminal; if an act lacks the nature of unlawfulness, it serves as a justification for not being punished, which was not explicitly in KUHP Lama.

Who cannot be held criminally responsible according to Pasal 40 in KUHP Baru?

Children under 12 years old at the time of committing a criminal act cannot be held criminally responsible.

What is the difference between paksaan mutlak (absolute duress) and paksaan relatif (relative duress) in KUHP Baru?

Paksaan mutlak occurs when the person has no alternative but to commit the act, while paksaan relatif involves coercion or threats from which resistance is unreasonable or impossible, considering the balance of interests.

How does KUHP Baru regulate acts done under an unauthorized order?

Under Pasal 44, an act under an unauthorized order is excused if the person acted in good faith, believed the order was lawful, and performed it within the scope of their job or position.

Why did KUHP Baru separate alasan pembenar and alasan pemaaf into different sections?

Because alasan pembenar removes the unlawful nature of the act itself (tied to the criminal act), while alasan pemaaf removes personal culpability or fault, which relates to criminal responsibility. This distinction clarifies legal interpretation and application.

How does KUHP Baru address the concept of 'pembelaan terpaksa melampaui batas' (excessive self-defense)?

Pasal 43 allows for exoneration if excessive self-defense is directly caused by a severe mental disturbance from an immediate unlawful attack, emphasizing the causal link between emotional reaction and the unlawful attack.