Criminal Liability for Victims of Robbery Who Engage in Emergency Self-Defense
Main Article Content
Dewa Ayu Dwi Purnamasari*
A. A. Ngurah Oka Yudistira Darmadi
The purpose of this writing is to examine criminal acts that can be classified under forced defense and to analyze the form of criminal liability for victims of robbery who defend themselves in emergency situations. This research applies a normative legal approach, utilizing the study and analysis of literature sources in accordance with primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, and employing conceptual and legal approach methods. The results of this writing explain that criminal acts can be excluded from punishment if they meet the elements of forced defense as stipulated in Article 49 of the Criminal Code. The victim of the crime of robbery (begal) who defends themselves in an emergency cannot be convicted if the action is carried out proportionally, as a reaction to a real threat to self, honor, or property. The recognition of forced defense as a reason for criminal expungement provides legal protection for victims of crime who are forced to defend themselves. This encourages law enforcement officials to consider aspects of justice, proportionality, and the context of the event in the criminal justice process.
Agung, A. A. G., Dewi, A. A. S. L., & Widyantara, I. M. M. (2021). Perlindungan hukum terhadap pelaku pembunuhan begal atas dasar pembelaan terpaksa. Jurnal Interpretasi Hukum, 2(1), 1–7.
Ashworth, A. J. (1975). Self-defence and the Right to Life. The Cambridge Law Journal, 34(2), 282–307.
Hutabarat, D. T. H., Fransisca, Z., Ritonga, F., Pardede, D. J., Almas, S., Sikumbang, N. A., Mutiara, Khoiriyah, A., Hamizah, S., Malahayati, & Suryadi. (2022). Understanding And Describing Relationship Of State Law And Human Right. Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences and Business (JHSSB), 1(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55047/jhssb.v1i1.63
LaFave, W. R., & Remington, F. J. (1964). Controlling the Police: The Judge’s Role in Making and Reviewing Law Enforcement Decisions. Mich. L. Rev., 63, 987.
Lakoy, R. E. K. (2020). Syarat proporsionalitas dan subsidaritas dalam pembelaan terpaksa menurut pasal 49 ayat (1) Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana. Lex Crimen, 9(2).
Marselino, R. (2019). Pembelaan Terpaksa Yang Melampaui Batas (Noodweer Exces) Pada Pasal 49 Ayat (2) KUHP. Universitas Airlangga.
Moeljatno. (2002). Principles of Criminal Law (4th ed.). PT. Rineka Cipta.
Permana, H. P., Hartono, M. S., & Adnyani, N. K. S. (2021). Analisis Yuridis Tentang Tidak Dipertimbangkannya Alasan Pemaaf Dalam Kasus Penganiayaan Begal Karena Membela Diri (Studi Putusan Nomor 01/Pid. Sus-Anak/2020/Pn. Kpn). Jurnal Komunitas Yustisia, 4(2), 212–223.
Prasad, G., Dewi, A. A. S. L., & Widyantara, I. M. M. (2021). Tinjauan Yuridis terhadap Tindak Pidana Daya Paksa dan Pembelaan Terpaksa. Jurnal Konstruksi Hukum, 2(3), 483–488.
Soedarto. (1986). Kapita Selekta Hukum Pidana. Alumni.
Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2013). Penelitian Hukum Normatif Suatu Tinjauan. Singkat, Jakarta: CV. Rajawali.
Soesilo, R. (1988). Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana Serta Komentar-komentarnya Lengkap Pasal Demi Pasal. Politeia.
Sudaryono, N. (2024). Hukum Pidana Dasar-Dasar Hukum Pidana Berdasarkan KUHP dan RUU KUHP. UNIVERSITAS MITRA INDONESIA.
Surono, A. (2016). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Rumah Sakit. Jakarta: UAI Press-Universitas Al Azhar.
Sutanto, H., & Borman, S. (2023). Efforts Made by Polri as Law Enforcement Officials in Committing Crime with Violence (Begal). POLICY, LAW, NOTARY AND REGULATORY ISSUES (POLRI), 2(4). https://doi.org/10.55047/polri.v2i4.773
Usman, A. H. (2014). Kesadaran hukum masyarakat dan pemerintah sebagai faktor tegaknya negara hukum di Indonesia. Jurnal Wawasan Yuridika, 30(1), 26–53.
Utoyo, M. (2013). Pelaku Pembunuhan yang Membela Diri dalam Mempertahankan Kehormatan dan Harta. Pranata Hukum, 8(2), 26738.
Wahyuni, F. (2017). Dasar Hukum Pidana diIndonesia,. PT. Nusantara Persada Utama.
