Strict Liability as a Counterbalance to the Principle of Error in Indonesian Criminal Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37253/jjr.v24i2.7317Keywords:
Strict Liability, Principle of Fault, Criminal Law ReformAbstract
This study wants to reveal how the criminal law policy in formulating the principle of strict liability now and in the future. This research is included in the type of normative juridical research. The data collection technique in this research is in the form of literature study. The data obtained were analyzed by analytical descriptive. The results of this study indicate that the current criminal law policy in formulating the principle of strict liability can be found in several Indonesian laws and foreign laws with several formulation models. The strict liability principle in the RKUHP as a counterbalance to the principle of error does not provide more complete arrangements regarding the limits of criminal acts that can be subject to strict liability, besides that there is no regulation regarding defense as one of the characteristics of the formulation of the strict liability principle. The results of the comparative study concluded that the application of the principle of strict liability in the RKUHP requires limits, measures, and defense regarding which actions can be applied with strict liability considering that the principle of strict liability serves as a counterweight to the principle of 'no crime without fault'.
Downloads
References
Anderson, J. G. (1978). The Rylands v. Fletcher Doctrine in America: Abnormally Dangerous, Ultrahazardous, or Absolute Nuisance. Ariz. St. LJ, 99.
Arief, B. N. (2013). Kapita Selekta Hukum Pidana. Bandung :Citra Aditya Bakti.
Arief, B. N. (a2014). Bunga Rampai Kebijakan Hukum Pidana (Perkembangan Penyusunan Konsep KUHP Baru). Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Arief, B. N. (b2014). Perbandingan Hukum Pidana Edisi Revisi. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Arofa, E., Yunus, A., Sofyan, A., & Borahima, A. (2015). Corporate criminal liability for corruption offences in Indonesian criminal justice system. International Journal of Advanced Research, 3(8), 246-250.
Duff, A. (2009). Legal and Moral responsibility. Philosophy Compass, 4(6).
Faizal, Z. P. (2021). Strict liability in environmental dispute responsibility before and after the enabling of omnibus law. Administrative and Environmental Law Review, 2(1), 53-60.
Fatimah, F. (2012). Pertanggungjawaban Pengganti (Vicarious Liability) dalam Kebijakan Formulasi Hukum Pidana Di Indonesia. LAW REFORM, 7(2), 1-42.
Faure, M. G., & Schaffmeister, D. (2004). “Kekhawatiran Masa Kini†Pemikiran Mengenai Hukum Pidana Lingkungan Dalam Teori dan Praktek. Indonesian Journal of International Law, 2(2), 394-395.
Foley, V. J. (2010). Deepwater Horizon: The Legal Fallout-The Framework for Liability, Fines, and Penalties for Oil Pollution. Environmental Claims Journal, 22(4).
Gunawan, B. (2016). Asas Strict Liability Dalam Hukum Pidana Narkotika. Surabaya: Tugas Akhir Universitas Airlangga.
Huda, C. (2016). Dari Tiada Pidana Tanpa Kesalahan Menuju Kepada Tiada Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Tanpa Kesalahan. Jakarta: Kencana.
Jaya, N. S. P. (2016). Hukum (Sanksi) Pidana Adat Dalam Pembaharuan Hukum Pidana Nasional. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 45(2).
Kurniawan, R. (2017). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi Berdasarkan Asas Strict Liability (Studi Pembaharuan Hukum Pidana Lingkungan Hidup). Jurnal Yuridis, 1(2)
Lawson, C. (2005). Information Asymmetry, GMOs and Strict Liability Under the Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth). Queensland U. Tech. L. & Just. J., 5(7).
Marthin, A. (2008). Strict Liability Dan Vicarious Liability Dalam Ketentuan Perundang-Undangan Pidana Indonesia. Surabaya: Tugas Akhir Universitas Airlangga.
Muladi., & Priyatno, D. (2015). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi. Jakarta: Kencana.
Murphy, J. (2004). The merits of Rylands v Fletcher. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24(4), 643-669, https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/24.4.643.
Njatrijani, R. (2017). Posisi Undang-Undang Perlindungan Konsumen Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 dalam Upaya Perlindungan Terhadap Konsumen. Diponegoro Private Law Review, 1(1).
Perry, R. (2011). The Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the limits of civil liability. Wash. L. Rev., 86(1)
Praja, C. B. E., Nurjaman, D., Fatimah, D. A., & Himawati, N. (2016). Strict Liability Sebagai Instrumen Penegakan Hukum Lingkungan. Varia Justicia, 12(1), 42-62.
Rezeki, S. S. (2015). Pertanggungjawaban Korporasi Terhadap Penerapan Prinsip Strict Liability Dalam Kasus Kerusakan Lingkungan Hidup. Al-Jinayah: Jurnal Hukum Pidana Islam, 1(1).
Samuels, A. (2002). Sexual Offences and Criminal Intent: What the Prosecution Must Prove. The Journal of Criminal Law, 66 (3).
Sudarto. (2013). Hukum Pidana 1. Semarang: Yayasan Sudarto.
Wibawa, I. (2017). Pidana Kerja Sosial dan Restitusi Sebagai Alternatif Pidana Penjara dalam Pembaharuan Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Jurnal Media Hukum, 24(2), 105-114.
Windari, R. A. (2015). Pertanggungjawaban Mutlak (Strict Liability) Dalam Hukum Perlindungan Konsumen. Jurnal Komunikasi Hukum (JKH), 1(1), https://doi.org/10.23887/jkh.v1i1.5013.
Wulansari, R., & Pramono, N. (2007). Penerapan Prinsip Pertanggungjawaban Mutlak Dalam Kecelakaan Angkutan Udara Di Indonesia: Studi Kasus Pt Lion Air Mentari Air Lines. Jogjakarta: Tugas Akhir Universitas Gadjah Mada.
2.png){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
