Law Enforcement in Handling Obstruction of Justice in Corruption Crimes Committed by Advocates Case Study of Supreme Court Decision Number: 684 K/Pid. Sus/2009

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

This study aims to examine law enforcement's response to obstruction of justice and corruption offences committed by advocates using case studies from the Supreme Court Verdict No. 684 K/Pid.Sus/2009. The study's formulation of the problem is based on the Supreme Court Decision 684 K / Pid.Sus / 2009, and the Position of the Right to Immunity Advocates in Cases of Corruption. This is a normative juridical form of research. The results revealed that while the Position of Advocate possesses protection from prosecution in cases of corruption, this does not mean they are immune from the law. Equal protection under the law requires that equality before the law be respected and maintained as a common standard in law enforcement. Criminal liability for those who obstruct justice in corruption cases is 3 (three) years in prison and a fine of Rp. 150.000.000, if the defendant's activities are found to meet the elements of criminal acts as defined in Article 21 of Law No. 31 of 1999 jo. Law No. 20 of 2001. It can be speculated that the concept of equality before the law must continue to be implemented because it signifies equality against everyone, whether privileged or impoverished, authorities or regular citizens. In a matter of fact, advocates do not receive legal immunity. In this instance, the advocate should also maintain the Criminal Justice System's, such as a precaution or even obstruct the legal process by not taking steps.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)391-399
JournalInternational Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding
Volume9
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2022

Keywords

  • Obstruction of Justice
  • Corruption Crime
  • Advocate
  • Supreme Court Decision

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Law Enforcement in Handling Obstruction of Justice in Corruption Crimes Committed by Advocates Case Study of Supreme Court Decision Number: 684 K/Pid. Sus/2009'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this