Understanding the Context of Criminal Acts of Violence in Public

Oct 13, 2025 by recoveryshake.com 143 views

Analysis of Differences in Judges' Considerations in Proof of Criminal Acts of Violence in Public

Introduction

Criminal acts of collective violence in public places often occur in the community, especially in crowded locations such as night entertainment centers and even within Penitentiary. The case that became the focus of this analysis occurred in Medan, precisely in Medan Police Detention Center in 2021. Responding to this phenomenon, this study was entitled "Analysis of Differences in Judges' Considerations in Proof of Criminal Acts of Violence in Public (Study of Decision of District Court No. 1726/PID.B/2022/PN.MDN and Decision of High Court No. 159/PID/2023/PT.MDN). This study uses a normative research method, which examines legal materials or secondary data that are analyzed qualitatively.

Understanding the Context of Criminal Acts of Violence in Public

Criminal acts of violence that occur in public are types of crime stipulated in the Criminal Code (KUHP), especially in Article 170 concerning crimes against public order. In the context of the case under study, the court that handles this case uses Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) which regulates proof. The judge's assessment in deciding the case is largely determined by the facts revealed during the trial. In the decision of the District Court No. 1726/Pid.B/2022/PN.Mdn, Judges argue that the existence of elements of violence that causes physical and psychological damage, and creating insecurity in the community, has been fulfilled. Meanwhile, at the Decision of the High Court No. 159/PID/2023/PT.MDN, the judge considers the three charges submitted by the Public Prosecutor, including Article 351 paragraph (3) jo. Article 55 paragraph (1) of the number 1 of the Criminal Code, by assessing that the perpetrators' actions not only harm physical, but also threaten the lives of victims.

The Role of Judges in Deciding Criminal Acts of Violence in Public

The judge's role in deciding criminal acts of violence in public is crucial, as they must consider the facts of the case and apply the relevant laws to reach a verdict. In the case under study, the judges at the District Court and High Court levels have different considerations in deciding the case. At the District Court level, the focus is more on physical elements and their impact on public order, while in the high court, deeper considerations include psychological aspects and long-term influence on victims. This shows that judges at the high court level have a broader perspective, taking into account the social impact that is greater than acts of violence.

Analysis of the Differences of Judges' Considerations

From the analysis of the two decisions, there are differences in the judge's consideration. The District Court focuses more on physical elements and their impact on public order, while the High Court considers psychological aspects and long-term influence on victims. This shows that judges at the high court level have a broader perspective, taking into account the social impact that is greater than acts of violence. The conclusion of this study shows that the difference in judges' considerations in deciding the criminal offense of violence in public is reasonable, because each court level has different interpretations and understanding of applicable legal norms.

The Importance of Harmony between Judges in Applying the Same Law

The importance of harmony between judges in applying the same law to similar cases cannot be overstated. This study highlights the need for clear guidelines and principles in law enforcement to ensure justice for all parties and prevent acts of violence in public places. Through this research, it is hoped that readers can understand the complexity and dynamics in the legal process, as well as the importance of the role of judges in creating justice in society.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study has analyzed the differences in judges' considerations in deciding the criminal offense of violence in public. The study has shown that the judges at the District Court and High Court levels have different considerations in deciding the case, with the High Court considering psychological aspects and long-term influence on victims. The study highlights the need for clear guidelines and principles in law enforcement to ensure justice for all parties and prevent acts of violence in public places. Through this research, it is hoped that readers can understand the complexity and dynamics in the legal process, as well as the importance of the role of judges in creating justice in society.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made:

The court should provide clear guidelines and principles in law enforcement to ensure justice for all parties and prevent acts of violence in public places.
The judges should have a broader perspective, taking into account the social impact that is greater than acts of violence.
The court should consider psychological aspects and long-term influence on victims in deciding the case.
The court should provide training and education to judges on the importance of considering psychological aspects and long-term influence on victims in deciding the case.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations, including:

The study only analyzed two decisions of the District Court and High Court levels.
The study only considered the perspectives of the judges and did not consider the perspectives of other stakeholders, such as the victims and the perpetrators.
The study only analyzed the decisions of the District Court and High Court levels and did not consider the decisions of other courts.

Future Research Directions

Future research directions include:

Analyzing the decisions of other courts, such as the Supreme Court, to see if there are any differences in the judges' considerations.
Considering the perspectives of other stakeholders, such as the victims and the perpetrators, to see if there are any differences in their perspectives.
Analyzing the impact of the judges' considerations on the outcome of the case.

Conclusion

Q: What is the main focus of this study?

A: The main focus of this study is to analyze the differences in judges' considerations in deciding the criminal offense of violence in public. The study examines the decisions of the District Court and High Court levels to see if there are any differences in the judges' considerations.

Q: What are the key findings of this study?

A: The key findings of this study are that the judges at the District Court and High Court levels have different considerations in deciding the case. The District Court focuses more on physical elements and their impact on public order, while the High Court considers psychological aspects and long-term influence on victims.

Q: What are the implications of this study?

A: The implications of this study are that the judges should have a broader perspective, taking into account the social impact that is greater than acts of violence. The court should also provide clear guidelines and principles in law enforcement to ensure justice for all parties and prevent acts of violence in public places.

Q: What are the limitations of this study?

A: The limitations of this study are that it only analyzed two decisions of the District Court and High Court levels, and it only considered the perspectives of the judges and did not consider the perspectives of other stakeholders, such as the victims and the perpetrators.

Q: What are the future research directions?

A: The future research directions include analyzing the decisions of other courts, such as the Supreme Court, to see if there are any differences in the judges' considerations. It also includes considering the perspectives of other stakeholders, such as the victims and the perpetrators, to see if there are any differences in their perspectives.

Q: What are the recommendations of this study?

A: The recommendations of this study are that the court should provide clear guidelines and principles in law enforcement to ensure justice for all parties and prevent acts of violence in public places. The judges should also have a broader perspective, taking into account the social impact that is greater than acts of violence.

Q: What is the significance of this study?

A: The significance of this study is that it highlights the need for clear guidelines and principles in law enforcement to ensure justice for all parties and prevent acts of violence in public places. It also shows the importance of the role of judges in creating justice in society.

Q: What are the potential applications of this study?

A: The potential applications of this study are that it can be used to inform policy and practice in the area of law enforcement and the administration of justice. It can also be used to educate judges and other stakeholders about the importance of considering psychological aspects and long-term influence on victims in deciding the case.

Q: What are the potential benefits of this study?

A: The potential benefits of this study are that it can lead to more effective and efficient administration of justice, and it can help to prevent acts of violence in public places. It can also lead to more informed decision-making by judges and other stakeholders.

Q: What are the potential challenges of this study?

A: The potential challenges of this study are that it may be difficult to implement the recommendations of the study, and it may be challenging to change the perspectives of judges and other stakeholders. It may also be challenging to analyze the decisions of other courts and to consider the perspectives of other stakeholders.

Q: What are the potential limitations of this study?

A: The potential limitations of this study are that it may be limited by the data and methods used, and it may be limited by the perspectives of the researchers. It may also be limited by the fact that it only analyzed two decisions of the District Court and High Court levels.

Q: What are the potential future directions of this study?

A: The potential future directions of this study are that it can be used to inform policy and practice in the area of law enforcement and the administration of justice. It can also be used to educate judges and other stakeholders about the importance of considering psychological aspects and long-term influence on victims in deciding the case.