PERTANGGUNG JAWABAN PIDANA TERHADAP PENGANJUR (UITLOKKER) DALAM TINDAK PIDANA KEBAKARAN LAHAN (ANALISIS PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NEGERI SANGATTA NOMOR 259/PID.B/PN.SGT) TANGGAL 12 DESEMBER 2019

Penulis

  • Nindytha Elfiana Br Surbakti Universitas Tjut Nyak Dhien Medan
  • Khairun Na'im Universitas Tjut Nyak Dhien Medan
  • karolina Sitepu Universitas Tjut Nyak Dhien Medan

Kata Kunci:

Land Fire, Advocate, Criminal Imposition

Abstrak

The crime of land fires is an incident that often occurs. It should be noted that in criminal acts of land fires there is a role of the organizer or uitlokker as is the case in the Sangatta District Court Decision Number 259/Pid.B/PN. Sgt December 12 2019. This research aims to determine the application of criminal responsibility for the organizer (uitlokker) in the crime of land fires and analysis of criminal penalties against the organizers (uitlokker) for the crime of land burning, based on the Decision of the Sangatta District Court Number 259/Pid.B /2019/PN.SGT)” December 12 2019. The type of research used is normative juridical with descriptive research characteristics. This research approach uses a statutory and cash approach. The data sources in the form of secondary data include primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials collected through literature study and analyzed qualitatively. The results of this research are that criminal liability for the organizer or uitlokker in the criminal act of participation is based on Article 55 paragraph (1) 2 of the Criminal Code. This responsibility is only limited to actions that are deliberately encouraged and their consequences. Accountability for proponents of land burning is based on the provisions of Article 187 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code and Article 69 paragraph (1) letter h of Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management. The criminal sentence against the defendant as uitlokker in the Sangatta District Court Decision Number 259/Pid.B/2019/PN.Sgt was realized through imprisonment for three months. This criminal imposition is in accordance with statutory regulations because the judge's verdict is in accordance with the criminal threat of Article 187 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code. However, the judge did not apply the legal principle of lex special derogate legi generali which should be able to refer to the Plantation Law and the PPLH Law.

Unduhan

Diterbitkan

2024-08-31