PRE-TRIAL: THE SUSPECTS' ULTIMATE WEAPON AND CORRECTION TOOL FOR INVESTIGATORS TO BE MORE PROFESSIONAL FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LEGAL EXPEDIENCY
##plugins.themes.EpsilonTheme.article.main##
Albertus Luter*
Ramlani Lina Sinaulan
Mohamad Ismed
This study aims to determine the practice of holding pretrial hearings in Indonesia changed in the aftermath of the 2014 constitutional court ruling 21 / PUU-XII / 2014 as well as legal expediency accrue from pre-trial actions against suspects' determinations, both for the suspect himself and for the suspect. This study is a descriptive qualitative research with the use of normative legal research with primary data collection namely Court Decisions, Legislations which are analyzed using Legislative approaches, Case Approaches and Analytical Approaches. The findings reveal that Pretrial hearings were implemented in Indonesia following the constitutional court's decision Number: 21 /PUU-XII/2014, creating a new legal phenomenon in which suspects flocked to file pretrial legal efforts, which naturally clogged up relevant state institutions such as POLRI, KPK, the Prosecutor's Office as well as the District Court, where pretrial which had previously been viewed as a less popular legal effort, was instantly weakened as if it Advocates defending suspects and on the other hand, related institutions can prepare themselves by enacting a series of regulations requiring increased prudence in determining suspects in order to "survive" the new weapons of suspects known as Pretrial. However, when viewed through the lens of legal expediency, it is a positive thing for investigators because it means that Pretrial can be used as a tool of correction.
Baker, E. (2002). The greatest good to the greatest number. Cardiology in the Young, 12(3), 209–210.
Choiruddin, R. R., & Nyoman Serikat Putra Jaya, S. (2016). Tinjauan Yuridis Penetapan Status Tersangka Sebagai Perluasan Objek Praperadilan Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 21/PUU-XII/2014. Diponegoro Law Journal, 5(2), 1–19.
Deddi Diliyanto, S. H., & Zainal Asikin, S. H. (2018). Perluasan Wewenang PRaperadilan Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 21-PUU-XII-2014. Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum DE’JURE: Kajian Ilmiah Hukum, 3(1), 28–55.
Drew, B. T., González-Gallegos, J. G., Xiang, C.-L., Kriebel, R., Drummond, C. P., Walked, J. B., & Sytsma, K. J. (2017). Salvia united: The greatest good for the greatest number. Taxon, 66(1), 133–145.
Herlinda, H. (2019). Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Kewenangan Hakim Praperadilan Dalam Memustukan Permohonan Praperadilan Dengan Objek Menetapkan Tersangka. Badamai Law Journal, 4(1), 164–183.
Kaligis, O. C. (2000). Praktik Pra peradilan Dari Waktu Ke Waktu. Otto Cornelis Kaligis & Associates, Jakarta, Tahun, 109–110.
Pangaribuan, A. M. A., Mufti, A., & Zikry, I. (2017). Pengantar Hukum Acara Pidana Di Indonesia, Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo.
Prasetyo, R. E. (2015). Hukum Acara Pidana. Bandung: Pustaka Setia.
Pujiantoro, B. (n.d.). Manajemen Penyidikan Tindak Pidana Di Lingkungan Kepolisian Daerah Kalimantan Barat Dalam Upaya Penyidikan Tindak Pidana Pertanahan (Analisis Terhadap Peraturan Kapolri Nomor 6 Tahun 2019 Tentang Penyidikan Tindak Pidana). Jurnal NESTOR Magister Hukum, 3(3).
Sebayang, S. (2020). Praperadilan Sebagai Salah Satu Upaya Perlindungan Hak-Hak Tersangka Dalam Pemeriksaan Di Tingkat Penyidikan (Studi Pengadilan Negeri Medan). Jurnal Hukum Kaidah: Media Komunikasi Dan Informasi Hukum Dan Masyarakat, 19(2), 329–383.
Setiadi, H. E. (2017). Sistem Peradilan Pidana Terpadu dan Sistem Penegakan Hukum di Indonesia. Prenada Media.
Teslatu, L. C. M. (2019). Penetapan Tersangka Sebagai Objek Praperadilan Dalam Putusan Mk No. 21/Puu/Xii/2014 Sebagai Pemenuhan HAM Dan Tercapainya Sistem Peradilan Pidana Terpadu. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum: ALETHEA, 2(2), 131–144.
Yuristia, R. (2016). Pengaruh Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 21/PUU-XII/2014 Terhadap Pengajuan Praperadilan Mengenai Penetapan Status Ongky Syahrul Ramadhona Sebagai Tersangka. Verstek, 4(3).
