Analisis Gijzeling dari Sisi Hukum Pidana dan Hak Asasi Manusia  

Oleh:

Muladi

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah nasional - tidak terakreditasi DIKTI
Dalam koleksi: Jurnal Hukum Bisnis vol. 15 (2001), page 24-28.
Topik: HUKUM PIDANA; analisis gijzeling; hukum pidana

Ketersediaan

Perpustakaan Pusat (Semanggi) Nomor Panggil: JJ102.2 Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0) Tandon: tidak ada

Lihat Detail Induk

Isi artikel

According to Supreme Court regulation No.1/2000, Gijzeling has not been viewed as hostage or taking hostage anymore, but it has a connotation as an imprisonment for civil debt. On the one hand, an imprisonment should have the meaning of lawful imprisonment. On the other hand, hostage or taking hostage has a negative meaning as false imprisonment, which contains of substances such as unlawful, without warrant, by force, therefore taking hostage is a criminal. In the USA, taking hostage is a federal crime (An innocent held captive by one who threatens to kill or harm him if his demands are not met). Gijzeling or imprisonment for civil debt is substantially a limited criminalization. Why is it? because in the imprisonment for civil debt, there is emerged a new type of crime called civil offense. A civil offense happens if one fails to fulfil the payment for Child Support Arrest Warrant. A prerequisite for the criminalization is there should have an actual victim or a potential victim. There should have an ultimate ratio principle and the use of cost and benefit analysis. Moreover, the criminalization should have a positive goal not just for revenge, or ad hoc. The imprisonment for civil debt should have substances of fraud and willfully.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali