Recruit researchers Join for free Login
Article PDF Available
JUDGE'S LEGAL REASONING IN SEARCHING LEGAL VALUE AND JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL CASE
July 2021 · Tianjin Daxue Xuebao (Ziran Kexue yu Gongcheng Jishu Ban)/Journal of Tianjin University Science and Technology 54(07):10-18
DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/8JQM5
Project: JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL CASE
Authors:
Julaiddin Julaiddin
Sukawi Sutarif Siti Hijrohwati Aizatin
Ekasakti university
Download full-text PDF Read full-text Download citation Copy link
References (13)
Abstract
This study aimed to know the legal reasoning in cassation level to search for legal value
and justice in criminal case. The methodology used was normative methodology with Discover the world's
research
statue approach. This study examined judge's decision in cassation level, notably in
criminal case. The results showed that legal reasoning of judge in cassation level focused 20+ million
in seven primary points, including comprehensive method and analysis, new interpretive
members
verdict, new legal construction, coherent syllogistic, no jumping conclusion, forced
conclusion, and suitability with value and justice. While its pattern was divided into three 135+ million
thoughts such as partial judge reasoning, ethical judge reasoning and pragmatic judge publications
reasoning. Therefore, it can be concluded that legal reasoning plays an important role in 700k+ research
Join for free
guiding judges to judge cases, so that justice, certainty, and benefits to society can be projects
achieved.
Advertisement
Public Full-texts 3
Content uploaded by Julaiddin Julaiddin Author content
2. 8JQM5 (2).pdf
Content may be subject to copyright.
Tianjin Daxue Xuebao (Ziran Kexue yu Gongcheng Jishu Ban)/
Journal of Tianjin University Science and Technology
ISSN (Online): 0493-2137
E-Publication: Online Open Access
Vol:54 Issue:07:2021
DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8JQM5
JUDGE’S LEGAL REASONING IN SEARCHING LEGAL VALUE AND
JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL CASE
Sukawi Sutarif, Julaiddin, Lilis Hijrohwati and Siti Aizatin
University of 17 Agustus 1945 Semarang, Indonesia
Abstract - This study aimed to know the legal reasoning in cassation level to search for
legal value and justice in criminal case. The methodology used wa s normative
methodology with statue approach. This study examined judge’s decision in cassation
level, notably in criminal case. The results showed that legal reasoning of judge in
cassation level focused in seven primary points, including comprehensive method and
analysis, new interpretive verdict, new legal construction, coherent syllogistic, no
jumping conclusion, forced conclusion, and suitability with value and justice. While its
pattern was divided into three thoughts such as partial judge reasoning, ethical judge
reasoning and pragmatic judge reasoning. Therefore, it can be concluded that legal
reasoning plays an important role in guiding judges to judge cases, so that justice,
certainty, and benefits to society can be achieved.
Keywords: Legal Reasoning, Legal Value, Justice, Cassation
1. INTRODUCTION
A vague portrait on law enforcement has become public opinion which peaked in the
end of 2009 in Indonesia. The cases of Bibit and Chandra[1], Prita Mulyasari[2] and
Mbah Mina[3] are some of the portrait of legal issues which become public
consumption, even those cases are the part of heretical judiciary[4]. Court verdict only
creates decision that fair in procedure. However, court verdict appeared to be more
winning those who have money and power. The access to justice, which should be
evenly distributed to all society layers, could not be achieved. Therefore, only elites who
could enjoy it. As an implication from this condition, court becomes a place for legal
mafia and article market[5]. Moreover, the judge verdict in court could not fulfill the
feeling of justice and righteous which then lead to the appearance of a priori accusation
that judge do some corruptive practices.
Meanwhile, in cassation level, there is almost no difference with first degree court. Chief
Justice who handles cassation should have deeper understanding on legal values and
justice within society. But the fact, there are still many Supreme Court verdicts that
ignore justice value in society. Prita Mulyasari’s case for instance, Supreme Court in its
verdict to grant the application of cassation from attorney who claim ed that Prita was
July2021| 10
Tianjin Daxue Xuebao (Ziran Kexue yu Gongcheng Jishu Ban)/
Journal of Tianjin University Science and Technology
ISSN (Online): 0493-2137
E-Publication: Online Open Access
Vol:54 Issue:07:2021
DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8JQM5
proved for defamation of Omni International Hospital through e-mail. The Tangerang
District Court ordered Prita to pay a fine of 204 million rupiahs to Omni International
Hospital, which was also supported by the Banten Higher Court. The judgment caused
public dissatisfaction, and then launched a campaign called "Koin untuk Prita" (Coins for
Prita) to help Prita pay the fine. However, the campaign managed to collect four times
the Prita fine. With the support of the public, Omni International Hospital withdrew the
lawsuit, which saved Prita from fines[6]. But in cassation level, Prita still sentenced to
prison for six months with one year ’s trial. Even though, previously, the District Court of
Tangerang acquitted Prita from all charges[7].
On the contrary, the Supreme Court acquitted the defendant in the corruption case
(Andi Wahab) in Lebak Bulus, south of Jakarta that expropriated graves, worth 27
million rupiahs. Andi Wahab was sentenced to 17 years in prison, but the South Jakarta
District Court decided to release Andi Wahab, even after filing a lawsuit, he once again
decided to be released by the Supreme Court. Even during 2011, the Supreme Court
has released at least 40 corrupt elements. Obviously, the Supreme Court’s decision has
complicated problems for the Indonesian judicial system, especially in terms of social
judicial value.
Legal reasoning is included as an important part of legal studies. The concept of legal
reasoning defining on how legal is applied in legal praxis steps. This term refers to a
step of thinking in applying legal studies phases started from legal philosophy, legal
theory, until legal dogmatic[8]. Legal reasoning is a basic search on how a judge
decides on legal cases, a lawyer in arguing law, and a law expert in interpreting law.
According to Golding, legal reasoning can be used in two meaning – broad and
narrow[9]. In broad sense, legal reasoning is related to the psychology process done by
the judge to arrive at a decision on the case that he faced. While in narrow sense, it
relates with argumentation that underlie a verdict or decision. It means that legal
reasoning in narrow sense concerns on logic study, that is the relationship between
reason and decision, also the accuracy of a reason or deliberation which support the
verdict itself.
Arif Sidharta states that legal reasoning is an activity to think problematic from legal
subject (human) as an individual and social creature within his culture circle.
Furthermore, legal reasoning does not seek for solutions to space that are open
indefinitely. There are requirement for legal reasoning to guarantee the stability and
predictability of a verdict which refer to positive legal system . For the sake of legal
certainty, argumentation must follow the structured principle thus the consistency of
decisions are relatively maintained or known as similia similibus principle. Based on this
view, Sidharta called the type of argumentation in legal reasoning as systematized
problematic thinking (gesystematiseerd probleemdenken)[10].
July2021| 11
Tianjin Daxue Xuebao (Ziran Kexue yu Gongcheng Jishu Ban)/
Journal of Tianjin University Science and Technology
ISSN (Online): 0493-2137
E-Publication: Online Open Access
Vol:54 Issue:07:2021
DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8JQM5
For judges, legal reasoning has function in taking decision on cases[11]. While, for legal
praxis, it useful for finding the basic of an event or legal action with aim to prevent the
violation of law in future and to become argumentation material if there is a dispute on
an event or legal action. For law drafter, legal reasoning has function to seek for basic
reason on why a constitution is organized and why a regulation is issued. Whereas, for
the practitioner, it has function to find a deeper definition on a constitution or regulation
due to not only perform without knowing the objective and intention.
There are two forms of legal reasoning, the first is legal logic. Legal logic is a logic that
applied within the law. There are four principles in legal logic[12], including (1) exclusion
or known as the principle that presuppose some of certain legislative source for system
and identified its legal system, (2) subsumption is a principle to assign the hierarchal
relationship among legal rules based on a higher and lower legislative source, (3)
derogation is a principle that reject a rule because of the conflict with other rule which
sourced from higher legislative source, and (4) non-contradiction is a principle that
reject possibility on legal system exposure in which people can affirm the existence of
obligation and, at the same time, the non-existence to an obligation which includes
situations of the same action in the same event. The second is legal argumentation.
Argumentation is a sequence of reasoning activity which showed on evidence of certain
information follow in basis from one or more other information. Argumentation is a giving
reason to strengthen or reject an argument or opinion based on legal logic which follows
the principles, studies and laws that needed to be followed to reach for truth[13].
Argumentation in legal studies also lied in legal logic that used as opinion justification
without leaving unity, relation and obedience (stelselmatigheid), to give solution toward
concrete, actual and potential legal problems due to achieve justice. Therefore, it can be
said that a juridical argument is a type of legal reasoning that involve the intellectual
process in justifying the rationality and logical consistency along with doctrinal
consistency to get a conclusion in deciding a legal case. Bernard Arif Sidharta claimed
that juridical argumentation is derived from legal discourse elements, legal rhetoric and
legal logic, thus it involves the application of formal logic study and method on
describing other thought[10]. The importance of juridical argumentation in legal
development activity make the argumentation theory is diametrically faced on fallacy
that must be prevented by all legal carrier in doing juridical activities to avoid the
secundum quid. The fallacy of thought itself is a reasoning process or argumentation
that actually illogical, wrong direction and mislead. It happened due to the coercion of
logical principles without observing its relevance. There are two factors of argument
failure, the first is failure that happen because it contains premise which formed from
wrong proportion. If there is an argument contains a false argument, then the argument
will be failed in setting the correctness of the conclusion. The second is failure that
happen due to an argument that contains premise that has no relation with the
conclusion. Butt (2019) in his paper explained that the judicial reasoning of Indonesia’s
Supreme Court resulting as a negative act. Most of the Court’s decisions were flawed
July2021| 12
Tianjin Daxue Xuebao (Ziran Kexue yu Gongcheng Jishu Ban)/
Journal of Tianjin University Science and Technology
ISSN (Online): 0493-2137
E-Publication: Online Open Access
Vol:54 Issue:07:2021
DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8JQM5
and inconsistence with the decisions[14]. In addition, almost all review decisions of the
Supreme Court have at least one major flaw in method or reasoning. Most are short and
vague, do not provide information about how the court reached them, provide no or no
reasoning at all, and contradict others[14]. Therefore based on the explanation above,
the researcher wants to know about the legal reasoning in judge’s verdict in cassation
level especially in criminal case.
2. METHODOLOGY
In this study, a qualitative descriptive approach was applied using normative
methodology with statue approach. It is in the form of written or spoken words and the
behavior of people observed during the event or incident. The empirical law method is a
legal methodology that allows people to see law in reality and observe how
environmental law works. This study analyzes judges' decisions at the cassation level,
especially in criminal cases, using the theory of justice and legal arrangements. The
theory of justice is used to determine which of them is fair and which is not. While legal
arrangements are a process of legal formation by judges or other legal apparatus. The
case of Prita Mulyasari is becoming the example of criminal case to be seen legally to
see the legal value and the sense of justice in society.
3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Legal Reasoning of Chief Justice in Criminal Case Decision
a. Comprehensive Method and Analysis
In Prita Mulyasari’s case, that is Supreme Court verdict number 822K/PID.SUS/2010,
the chief justice did not use comprehensive logic. It is seen through the legal
consideration in relation to the cassation that Prita Mulyasari’s acquittal was justified.
The Supreme Court did not state in clear reason that the application of cassation filed
by the attorney is justified.
There is no reasoning used by judge to base the opinion that the cassation application
can be accepted. The reference on proposition which filed by the attorney is also weak,
because if it is observed, the attorney also did not adequately explain why the verdict of
District Court can be categorized as a cassation verdict. Indeed, there is a little
statement stating that the attorney application should be rejected because it is a pure
acquittal verdict. However the council still accept the attorney’s cassation application
with legal opinion as the basic implementation of Article 244 Criminal Code Procedure.
b. New Interpretive Verdict
Interpretation is one of the legal finding methodologies that explain on unclear definition
of text constitutions to make the scope can be defined in relation to particular event. A
July2021| 13
Tianjin Daxue Xuebao (Ziran Kexue yu Gongcheng Jishu Ban)/
Journal of Tianjin University Science and Technology
ISSN (Online): 0493-2137
E-Publication: Online Open Access
Vol:54 Issue:07:2021
DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8JQM5
law expert could not act arbitrarily in implementing legal reasoning on a regulations of
law which considered incomplete or unclear. In seeking and determining the purpose of
the legislator, legal study has developed some method or way to interpret the
regulation, such as; (a) grammatical interpretation (taatkundige interpretatie), it is an
interpretation against terms or words and sentence structure within language context
used by the legislator in arranging certain law regulations, (b) historical interpretation
(historische interpretatie), it is an interpretation towards the content of law regulation by
reviewing the historical background, (c) systematic interpretation (systematische
interpretatie), it is an interpretation on one or more regulations by investigating a certain
system within legal system, in the context of discovering legal principles which can be
applied in certain legal problem, (d) sociological interpretation ( teologis), in line with
Prof. L.J. van Apeldoorn’s view, it refers to one of the primary tasks of a law expert that
is adjusting the regulation of concrete constitution within society, and (e) authentic
interpretation or interpretation towards word, term or definition within the regulation of
law that has been issued before by the legislator.
According to Article 16 Chapter (1) of Law Number 4/2004 concerning Juridical Power,
it requires judge to check and give decisions on cases submitted to him. Also, the judge
is not allowed to reject without clear reasons. Thus in Article 28 of Law Number 4/2004
concerning Juridical Power mentioned that judge as law and justice enforcement must
enlarge, follow, and understand the legal values that lie within society. It means that
judge should have ability and activeness to find the law (rechtsvinding). Rechtsvinding
is a process of forming law by judge or legal apparatuses in applying general regulation
on concrete legal event and findings as a basic to take decision. Therefore, judge can
do legal construction and refinement.
c. New Legal Construction
There are, at least, three forms of legal construction, the first is construction of analogy
(argumentum per analogiam). Analogy is a construction process which done by finding
legist ratio (genus) from a law constitutions and then apply it to other things that actually
not regulated by the law constitutions. Judge puts a case within the scope of law
regulation which not intended to solve the case, since there is similarity between
element and case or facts which can be done directly by the available law regulations.
Based on this, judge then applies the existing law regulations on cases that is faced by
him.
Legal application with analogy can only be done in cases of civil law. Criminal case
does not know about analogy because it contradict with the basic principles of criminal
law that is “there is no penalty without stipulating law constitution in advance” (nullum
crimen sine lege). If construction of analogy is used within criminal law then it will create
new offense. Thus, with the construction of analogy, the law expert can put a case
within the law regulation which is actually not intended to solve the case.
July2021| 14
Tianjin Daxue Xuebao (Ziran Kexue yu Gongcheng Jishu Ban)/
Journal of Tianjin University Science and Technology
ISSN (Online): 0493-2137
E-Publication: Online Open Access
Vol:54 Issue:07:2021
DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8JQM5
The second is legal refinement (rechtsverfijning). A law expert assumed that in solving a
case, the available law regulations has function to solve the problem, but it is not. Legal
refinement is done if the application of law is wrote as it is which will cause injustice.
Thus the written law requirement should not be applied or applied in other way to reach
for justice. This type of construction is actually the opposite from analogy construction.
Analogy enlarge the scope of law regulations while legal refinement is restrict the
scope.
The third is Argumentum a Contrario construction. In this condition, judge will issued law
regulation as in analogy activity that is applying a rule on case which not meant to be
solved using that regulation. The differentiation is within the judge’s analogy which will
produce a positive conclusion. It means that the judge will apply a rule toward the
problem he is facing. Meanwhile, in Argumentum a Contrario construction, it reached
until negative conclusion or it is impossible for judge to apply certain rules in case he
faced. Therefore, there are some new interpretation done by chief justice which related
to narcotics cases. In its indictment, the attorney prosecute the indictment but the judge
will keep on sentencing based on what he believed.
d. Coherent Syllogistic
Think syllogism refers to syllogism. Syllogism is the process of drawing conclusions in
deduction. The syllogism is arranged from two parts (statements) and one conclusion.
In Prita’s case, right after she is sentenced for guilt by the general judges, Prita was
found not guilty by Tanggerang District Court. But, the verdict is cancelled in cassation
level until it finally found inguilty and free from accusation in the rate of
consideration[15]. This showed that there is no coherency in decision-making. The
judges seem inconsistent with the decision they made.
e. No Jumping Conclusion
Jumping to a conclusion or leap to conclusion defines as judging or deciding something
without having all the facts and reaching unwarranted conclusions. Therefore, jumping
to a conclusion is when a judge is too fast in taking decision as happened in Prita
Mulyasari’s case. Prita was sentenced guilty on May 11th 2009 after Omni Hospital sued
Prita[16]. She also had to pay a fine for her defamation of Omni Hospital. Even, it is
actually Prita who should be demanded compensation from the hospital for the services
she received. But Prita cannot claim the compensation because it has exceeded the
time limit that stipulated in Article 1380 of the BW[15]. In this case, it can be seen that
there is a legal verdict that has tendency to be decided without careful legal
considerations.
f. Forced Conclusion
July2021| 15
Tianjin Daxue Xuebao (Ziran Kexue yu Gongcheng Jishu Ban)/
Journal of Tianjin University Science and Technology
ISSN (Online): 0493-2137
E-Publication: Online Open Access
Vol:54 Issue:07:2021
DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8JQM5
Forced conclusion is consideration between legal and incoherent verdict. One of the
examples of forced conclusion is happened in Prita’s case. As Shidarta stated that in
Prita’s case, the judge justifies the argument based on the basic authority of other party
which he thinks deserved better[17]. By using other party’s point of view, make the
interpretation toward the case become narrow.
g. Sustainability with Value and Justice
Some cases are still not yet in accordance with the value of legal and justice in society.
Just like in Prita's case, Prita just expressed her feelings about the poor service
provided by Omni International Hospital and shared it with some of her friends.
However, Omni International Hospital believed that Prita had slandered her company
and sued her for defamation. The hospital sued Prita and imposed a fine of 204 million
rupiahs. The society seen this case not as a defamation, they tried to help Prita by
gathering donation to help her pay the fine. Seeing the support from the public, Omni
International Hospital withdraw their accusation. It can be seen from this case that the
sustainability between value and justice is not yet in line with value and justice in
society. From a social point of view, Prita is innocent. She only criticized the services
received. Her service is poor, but she is still accused of defamation, which is unfair.
3.2. Polarization of Chief Justice’s Legal Reasoning in Cassation
a. Partial Judge Reasoning
From the case analysis, there is a reasoning pattern of partial judge. It refers to the
judge’s legal reasoning is not coherent notably in the relation between legal
consideration and verdict. Legal reasoning has central position that is very important for
judges to interpret the law itself. Even, it is a spirit from all efforts of legal interpretation
done by judges until produce a verdict or decision. In other words, legal reasoning has
important role in guiding judge to decide the effective meaning from legal constitution of
in casu.
b. Ethical Judge Reasoning
Ethic judge reasoning refers to judge who put forward ethic problem in his verdict. After
understanding the meaning of legal reasoning in broad and narrow sense along with its
determinant factors for judge in forming his legal reasoning, then it is needed to know
and understand about legal reasoning’s characteristics[18]. Refers to Aristotle’s
practical philosophical thought, Brett G Scharffs claimed that good legal reasoning is
structured in three concept, those are; practical wisdom or prognosis, craft or techno or
ability, and rhetoric[19]. Scharffs added that a good legal reasoning is a combination
result among practical wisdom, craft and rhetoric. Judge, before doing his task, is not
allowed to decide without giving any legal arguments or legal consideration or legal
reasoning[20]. A good judge is a judge who is able to combine the skill or characteristic
July2021| 16
Tianjin Daxue Xuebao (Ziran Kexue yu Gongcheng Jishu Ban)/
Journal of Tianjin University Science and Technology
ISSN (Online): 0493-2137
E-Publication: Online Open Access
Vol:54 Issue:07:2021
DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8JQM5
of practical wisdom, craft and rhetoric. Each of those three concepts is an essential
component from a good legal reasoning which has equal significant. Therefore, the
judge will be able to create a decision with professionalism, responsibilities, justice, and
objective.
c. Pragmatics Judge Reasoning
A lot of decisions issued by The Supreme Court which become controversy in society.
Even the accusations by likens Supreme Court and grand mafia are appeared as true.
In this perspective, it is known that judge decides with pragmatic ways. Pragmatism is
often mentioned as a form of inconsistency behavior and attitude. Pragmatic behavior
and attitude are depend on the construction which lie within. It is indeed, blind the
function and role of judge as justice originator. Moreover, chief justice is the last wall to
seek and look for justice. One of the examples of Supreme Court’s verdict is seen
through verdict on dead sentence. In legal reasoning, judges tend to give pragmatic
consideration and most of them apply normative law rather than utilitarianism, legal
realism until sociological jurisprudence. Normative law is used since it is easy and does
not need to add new knowledge for the verdict reference. The normative law which
mostly done by judge also safe from examination because judge is only need to quote
article in criminal code procedure without relating to the historical, philosophy and
sociological aspect in society. The judge is no longer think about how the law it should
be, but what is the law or punishment that should be done. Therefore, it ignores the job
to give neutral decisions on every case or conflict.
4. CONCLUSION
From the analysis above, it can be concluded that legal reasoning has very important
role in guiding the case verdict by judges. There are seven points, including
comprehensive method and analysis, new interpretive verdict, new legal construction,
coherent syllogistic, no jumping conclusion, forced conclusion, and suitability with value
and justice and three pattern of thought, partial judge reasoning, ethical judge reasoning
and pragmatic judge reasoning that needed to be used in deciding a case due to reach
the legal and justice value in society. The important point of deciding a case decision is
placed in legal finding that give space for society to express their opinion. Therefore,
law will be functioned as a tool that gives justice, certainty and advantage for society.
REFERENCES
[1] A. B. Nasution, “Kontroversi Kasus Bibit-Chandra,” Kompas.com, 2010. .
[2] J. Hitipeuw, “Kejanggalan Kasus Prita Menyeruak,” Kompas.com, 2011. .
[3] WSN, “Duh ... Tiga Buah Kakao Menyeret Minah ke Meja Hijau,” Kompas.com,
July2021| 17
Tianjin Daxue Xuebao (Ziran Kexue yu Gongcheng Jishu Ban)/
Journal of Tianjin University Science and Technology
ISSN (Online): 0493-2137
E-Publication: Online Open Access
Vol:54 Issue:07:2021
DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/8JQM5
2009. .
[4] E. A. Pamungkas, Peradilan Sesat Membongkar Kesesatan Hukum Di Indonesia,
Cetakan 1. Navilla Idea, 2010.
[5] D. F. Jambak, “Pasar Pasal: Analisa Penegakan Hukum di Pengadilan dikaitkan
dengan Sosiologi Hukum,” Legalitas, 2011. .
[6] E. Mazrieva, “Korban-Korban UU ITE yang Paling Disorot,” VOA Indonesia, 2018.
.
[7] J. Simanjuntak, “DPR: Putusan MA soal Prita Mulyasari Ciderai Rasa Keadilan,”
Tribunnews, 2011. .
[8] L. H. Carter and T. F. Burke, Reason in Law, Six Editio. Addison Wesley
Longman, Inc., 2000.
[9] M. P. Golding, Legal Reasoning. New York: Alfred A Knoff, Inc, 1984.
[10] B. A. Sidharta, Refleksi tentang Struktur Ilmu Hukum: Sebuah Penelitian tentang
Fundasi Kefilsafatan dan Sifat Keilmuan Ilmu Hukum sebagai Landasan
Pengembangan Ilmu Hukum Nasional Indonesia. Bandung: Mandar Maju, 2000.
[11] T. S. Kurnia, Pengantar Sistem Hukum Indonesia. Bandung: Alumni, 2009.
[12] J. W. Harris, Law and Legal Science. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.
[13] A. M. Moeliono, Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, 1989.
[14] S. Butt, “Judicial Reasoning and Review in the Indonesian Supreme Court,” Asian
J. Law Soc., vol. 6, no. 01, pp. 67–97, May 2019, doi: 10.1017/als.2018.26.
[15] N. Arviana, S. Mandiana, and J. J. Setyabudhi, “Analisis Kasus Prita Mulyasari
Dalam Putusan Peninjiauan Kembali No. 225 Pk/Pid.Sus/2011,” Yust. Merdeka J.
Ilm. Huk., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 78–81, 2020.
[16] detiknews, “Ini Dia Kronologi Prita Mencari Keadilan,” detikNews, 2012. .
[17] S. Shidarta, “Membidik Penalaran Hakim di Balik Skor Kosong-Kosong" dalam
Kasus Prita Mulyasari,” J. Yudisialsial, vol. 4, no. 3, 2011, doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.29123/jy.v4i3.181.
[18] H. M. A. Sanusi, “Legal Reasoning dalam Penafsiran Konstitusi,” Blogspot, 2009.
[19] B. G. Scharffs, The Character of Legal Reasoning. 61Wash and Lee L Rev 733,
2004.
[20] N. I. Isnantiana, “Legal Reasoning Hakim dalam Pengambilan Putusan Perkara di
Pengadilan,” ISLAMADINA, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 41, Oct. 2017, doi:
10.30595/islamadina.v18i2.1920.
July2021| 18
Citations (0) References (13)
Membidik Penalaran Hakim di Balik Skor "Kosong-Kosong" dalam Kasus Prita Mulyasari
Full-text available Article
Dec 2011
Shidarta Shidarta
View Show abstract
Legal Reasoning Hakim dalam Pengambilan Putusan Perkara di Pengadilan
Full-text available Article
Oct 2017
Nur Iftitah Isnantiana
i Sh b
View Show abstract
ANALISIS KASUS PRITA MULYASARI DALAM PUTUSAN PENINJIAUAN KEMBALI NO. 225 PK/PID.SUS/2011
Article
Sep 2020
Nerissa Arviana · Sari Mandiana · Jusup Jacobus Setyabudhi
View Show abstract
Judicial Reasoning and Review in the Indonesian Supreme Court
Article
Aug 2018
Simon Butt
View Show abstract
The Character of Legal Reasoning
Article
Jan 2004
Brett G. Scharffs
View
Kontroversi Kasus Bibit-Chandra
Jan 2010
A B Nasution
A. B. Nasution, "Kontroversi Kasus Bibit-Chandra," Kompas.com, 2010..
Kejanggalan Kasus Prita Menyeruak
Jan 2011
J Hitipeuw
J. Hitipeuw, "Kejanggalan Kasus Prita Menyeruak," Kompas.com, 2011..
Buah Kakao Menyeret Minah ke Meja Hijau
493-2137
Wsn · . Duh · Tiga
WSN, "Duh... Tiga Buah Kakao Menyeret Minah ke Meja Hijau," Kompas.com, Tianjin Daxue Xuebao (Ziran Kexue yu Gongcheng
Jishu Ban)/ Journal of Tianjin University Science and Technology ISSN (Online): 0493-2137
Pasar Pasal: Analisa Penegakan Hukum di Pengadilan dikaitkan dengan Sosiologi Hukum
Jan 2011
D F Jambak
D. F. Jambak, "Pasar Pasal: Analisa Penegakan Hukum di Pengadilan dikaitkan dengan Sosiologi Hukum," Legalitas, 2011..
Korban-Korban UU ITE yang Paling Disorot
Jan 2018
E Mazrieva
E. Mazrieva, "Korban-Korban UU ITE yang Paling Disorot," VOA Indonesia, 2018. .
Show more
Recommendations Discover more
Project
Legal studies
Julaiddin Julaiddin
View project
Project
JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL CASE
Julaiddin Julaiddin
View project
Article
Sentencing the Multiple Offender: Judicial Practice and Legal Principle
Austin Lovegrove
This study examines the approach of Victorian judges to the determination of sentencing for an offender convicted of multiple
offences. Justice in sentencing requires fair, coherent and openly stated policies, and their consistent application in sentencing
judgments. What is offered here is a description of current practices, as well the legal principles underpinning them. Given that a ...
[Show full abstract]
Read more
Conference Paper
Implementation of Participation Theory in Legal Transmission Determining the Fault of Corruption Cri...
January 2018
M. Musa
Read more
Article Full-text available
AKSES MENDAPATKAN KEADILAN (ACCESS TO JUSTICE) DALAM KONSTITUSI INDONESIA
January 2020 · UNES Law Review
Julaiddin Julaiddin
Melalui hukum, negara memberikan fasilitas untuk beraktifitas secara benar. Hukum harus menjamin terciptanya keadilan sosial bagi
seluruh rakyat Indonesia. Pengukuhan Indonesia menjadi negara hukum pada Pasal 1 ayat (3) UUD NRI 1945 mutatis-mutandis negara
(Pemerintah) bertanggung-jawab untuk menjamin setiap warganya diberlakukan sama dimata hukum (justice for all), serta pula
adanya jaminan ... [Show full abstract]
View full-text
Preprint
AKSES MENDAPATKAN KEADILAN (ACCESS TO JUSTICE) DALAM KONSTITUSI INDONESIA
January 2020
Julaiddin Julaiddin
Melalui hukum, negara memberikan fasilitas untuk beraktifitas secara benar. Hukum harusmenjamin terciptanya keadilan sosial bagi
seluruh rakyat Indonesia. Pengukuhan Indonesiamenjadi negara hukum pada Pasal 1 ayat (3) UUD NRI 1945 mutatis-mutandis
negara(Pemerintah) bertanggung-jawab untuk menjamin setiap warganya diberlakukan samadimata hukum (justice for all), serta pula
adanya jaminan setiap ... [Show full abstract]
Read more
Article
Jus post bellum: Foundational principles and a proposed model
March 2012 · Journal of Military Ethics
George M. Clifford
None of the numerous modern proposals for JUS POST BELLUM models has gained wide acceptance. The proposals tend to
resemble laundry lists, often enumerated without an obvious and coherent ethical rationale. Recognizing the importance of JUS POST
BELLUM, this article seeks to move the JUS POST BELLUM discourse forward. First, the article constructs a foundation of seven
principles for JUS POST ... [Show full abstract]
Read more
Last Updated: 05 Jul 2022
Company Support Business solutions
About us Help Center Advertising
News Recruiting
Careers
© 2008-2022 ResearchGate GmbH. All rights reserved. Terms · Privacy · Copyright · Imprint
