Annisa Hidayati

Pengaturan Tentang Tanggung Jawab Pidana Pelaku Pengidap Gangguan Jiwa Yang Melakukan Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan (Tinjauan Terhadap Hukum Pidana Positif di Indonesia)

Introduction

Pengaturan tentang tanggung jawab pidana pelaku pengidap gangguan jiwa yang melakukan tindak pidana pembunuhan (tinjauan terhadap hukum pidana positif di indonesia). Analisis tanggung jawab pidana pelaku pengidap gangguan jiwa yang melakukan pembunuhan di Indonesia. Membahas Pasal 44 KUHP, kriteria, dan implikasi hukumnya pada pertanggungjawaban pidana.

Abstract

In accordance with the principle of the rule of law, every person who commits a criminal offense must be held accountable. However, criminal law as stipulated in Article 44 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code that a mentally disturbed person who commits the crime of murder is juridically normative to eliminate his guilt so that he is free from criminal responsibility. However, Article 44 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code does not clearly define how a person with mental disorder actually is, and this problem requires legal certainty. Therefore, this study aims to determine the criteria for a person with mental disorder as referred to in Article 44 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code and the responsibility of a person with mental disorder who commits the crime of murder. This research uses normative legal research, namely research on secondary data in the form of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials collected through literature studies. Then the legal materials are processed and analyzed descriptively qualitative. The results showed that Article 44 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code does not clearly determine the criteria for a person suffering from mental disorders. Then in principle, a person with mental illness who commits the crime of murder cannot be held criminally responsible, because his guilt is forgiven according to Article 44 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.

Review

The article, "Pengaturan Tentang Tanggung Jawab Pidana Pelaku Pengidap Gangguan Jiwa Yang Melakukan Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan (Tinjauan Terhadap Hukum Pidana Positif di Indonesia)," addresses a critically important and complex area of criminal law: the criminal responsibility of individuals with mental disorders who commit murder in Indonesia. The study rightly identifies the tension between the principle of accountability for criminal offenses and the provisions of Article 44 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, which can exempt mentally disturbed persons from criminal responsibility due to a lack of guilt. This research is particularly relevant given the enduring challenges in balancing legal certainty, public safety, and the rights of individuals suffering from mental illness within the justice system. The primary objective is to clarify the criteria for mental disorder under Article 44(1) and to delineate the scope of responsibility for such offenders. Employing a normative legal research methodology, the study meticulously examines secondary data, including primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, through a comprehensive literature review. The subsequent descriptive qualitative analysis effectively elucidates the ambiguities within existing Indonesian positive criminal law. A key finding is the significant lacuna in Article 44 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, which fails to provide clear and definitive criteria for what constitutes a "mentally disturbed person." Consequently, the research reaffirms that, in principle, an individual with a mental illness who commits murder cannot be held criminally responsible under current law, as their guilt is effectively nullified by this provision. This contributes to a deeper understanding of the legal landscape surrounding mental health and criminal accountability in Indonesia. While the paper successfully highlights a crucial legal ambiguity and its implications, its descriptive nature could be further enhanced by exploring potential solutions or comparative legal perspectives. Although it identifies the absence of clear criteria, the study does not delve into *how* such criteria might be developed or what interdisciplinary input (e.g., from forensic psychiatry) could inform a more robust legal framework. Furthermore, a discussion on alternative measures for managing individuals deemed not criminally responsible, such as civil commitment or therapeutic interventions, would strengthen its practical relevance. Nevertheless, the research provides a valuable and timely identification of a fundamental gap in Indonesian criminal jurisprudence regarding mental health and accountability, serving as a solid foundation for future policy discussions and legislative reform.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.