Academic literature on the topic 'Crown's witness'

In February 1704, a Boston laborer named Thomas Lea found himself surrounded by townspeople as he lay on his deathbed. These spectators had gathered hoping to hear a much anticipated confession of the crimes they believed Lea had committed fifteen years earlier during the Dominion of New England. In Suffolk County, many townspeople had long maintained that Lea and others had used the confusion and chaos generated by the unsettling political and legal transformations introduced to New England during the 1680s to surreptitiously gain legal title to the estate of a prosperous Braintree, Massachusetts, landowner named William Penn. Standing by Lea's bedside, one witness, who believed Lea had perjured himself at the 1689 probate administration of Penn's estate, demanded: “Thomas can you as you are going out of the World answer at the Tribunal of God to the Will of Mr Penns, which you have sworn to[?]” “Was Mr Penn living or Dead when this Will was Made?” In the presence of assembled witnesses, Lea acknowledged, “he was dead.” Other townspeople pressed Lea to reveal the role he played in what many believed had been a murder for inheritance scheme. They reminded Lea that Penn's corpse had been found covered “in blood, in his own dung” with “a hole in his back, that you might turn your two fingers into it” and, even more disturbing, “one of his [Penn's] stones in his codd [scrotum] was broken all to pieces.” Averting the onlookers' gaze, Lea “turned his head aside the other way, saying what I did I was hired to do.” For these witnesses, the death-bed confession confirmed the rumors of Lea's crimes and strengthened their belief that a wave of corruption introduced in the 1680s had sabotaged New England's distinctive Puritan jurisprudence. Indeed, townspeople had labored for years to overturn the 1689 probate of Penn's estate in an effort forestall the crown's efforts to bring New England into political and legal conformity with the dictates of the growing English empire.

The presence of witnesses in the evidence is the keyword in disclosing the facts of criminal cases. The crown witness is often present at court. However, there are many differences of opinion in the Jurisprudence regarding the use of crown witnesses in court because there is no legal regulation that explicitly regulates the use of crown witnesses in criminal justice. Based on these problems, this study described how the protection of the rights of defendants as crown witnesses in criminal acts of theft with violence and how the position of crown witnesses in criminal acts of theft with violence. This research was designed using a normative legal research method and a conceptual approach. In the Criminal Procedure Code, there is no prohibition for a defendant to provide information for other defendants as far as using a splitsing system so that defendants who are crown witnesses still receive legal protection. The decision of the Supreme Court Number 1942 K / PID / 2012 which in its verification process used a crown witness. In this case, the public prosecutor presented the crown witness due to the lack of evidence especially witness testimony evidence. The role of the crown witness is very important to uncover criminal events because the defendant knows, sees, and commits criminal theft with violence. The result of this study showed that the protection of the rights of the defendant as a crown witness is equated with the rights of the defendant in general, which is regulated in Article 50 to Article 68 of the Criminal Procedure Code and witness rights set out in Article 5 of Law Number 31 of 2014. The position of the crown witness is justified in proof-based on the Circular Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia Number B-69 / E / 02/1997 of 1997 concerning Proof Law in Criminal Cases.

The research issue focuses on the examination of crown witnesses in the process of establishing criminal cases in Indonesia. The examination of the crown witnesses is necessary because law enforcement officers find it difficult to find evidence, other than the testimony of witnesses of the perpetrators themselves in order to find material truth that can be justified. The result of the research shows that the role of the crown witness in the criminal prosecution process is very significant, that is to find the material truth, so that the fast and simple proof process fulfills the minimum standard of proof, upholds public justice against the perpetrators and determines the demands of each actor in accordance with its role. The need for legal protection against the crown witness and the need for a policy of reform of criminal procedure law through the refinement of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to the content of witness material of the crown firmly and limitatively in the future.
 Keywords: Evidence; Criminal; Crown Witness

The Evidence Power of Crown Witnesses in Decision Number 400/Pid Sus/2019/PN.Pdg With 401/Pid Sus/2019/PN.Pdg And Decision Number 09/Pid Sus/2019/Pn.Pdg With 10/Pid Sus/2019/PN .Pdg is the same as other witnesses if they have met the requirements as witnesses. The crown witness in the narcotics crime case is the main witness to reveal the crime. The use of crown witnesses is very important because in this criminal act it is very difficult to find witnesses who can explain the chronology of a case because there are no victims and more than one perpetrator. The application of the Penalty in the Decision is a violation of Article 114 of the Narcotics Law. both defendants were guilty of violating Article 114 paragraph (1) of Law Jo, Article 132 paragraph (1) of Law no. 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. The judge handed down the same sentence.

ABSTRAK Tujuan artikel ini adalah untuk mengetahui penggunaan saksi mahkota (Kroongetuige) dalam pembuktian di persidangan dan Kekuatan saksi mahkota sebagai alat bukti dalam pembuktian tindak pidana narkotika. Dengan menggunakan metode yuridis normative, Artikel ini menunjukkan penggunaan saksi mahkota (kroongetuige) dalam pembuktian di persidangan terhadap tindak pidana narkotika diterapkan untuk mencari dan mendapatkan kebenaran materil dalam perkara penyertaan, dan berkas perkara telah dipisah, serta terdapat kekurangan alat bukti keterangan saksi yang mengetahui secara terperinci tindak pidana yang dilakukan bersama-sama dan penggunaan saksi mahkota tergantung dari kebijakan hakim dan kekuatan saksi mahkota sebagai alat bukti dalam pembuktian tindak pidana narkotika mempunyai nilai kekuatan pembuktian apabila saksi mahkota dinyatakan sah sebagai alat bukti keterangan saksi dengan memberikan keterangan didepan persidangan dan telah disumpah terlebih dahulu serta keterangan yang diberikan bersesuaian dengan keterangan saksi lain maupun alat bukti lain serta ditambah dengan keyakinan hakim. ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to study the Use of the Crown Witness (Kroongetuige) in Proof in Trials Against Narcotics Crimes. How to use the Crown Witness (Kroongetuige) in Proof in Trial Against Narcotics and How the Strength of the Crown Witness Uses Evidence in Proving Narcotics Crimes. The research method used is a normative juridical method with agreement, conceptual agreement and case access. This article discusses the use of crown witnesses (kroongetuige) in evidence in trials of narcotic crimes applied to search for and obtain material truth in inclusion cases, and forged cases posted, and also the reporting tools for complaints that are used together and the use of crowns depending the judge's policy and the power of the crown as evidence in proving narcotics crime has a value of proof power. Having fun with other statements besides evidence is also added to the judge's conviction.

This research discusses the issue of Legal Protection for Crown Witnesses in the Criminal Case Investigation Process.The results showed that the implementation of protection for crown witnesses was considered to have been implemented. This can be seen from the many forms of protection that can be provided to witnesses, especially crown witnesses, in the form of physical, psychological and legal protection. Physical and psychological protection is in the form of protection for personal safety and freedom from threats and pressure from other parties. Meanwhile, the form of legal protection in the form of witnesses cannot be prosecuted legally, either criminal or civil, for their testimony and special handling for witnesses who are also perpetrators of the same crime (crown witness). This shows that there is an effort to realize the legal rules regarding legal protection for crown witnesses. In order to achieve better legal protection for crown witnesses, it is necessary to increase the socialization of legal rules related to witness protection to the public so that the public will better understand that there is a mechanism of legal rules regulating the protection of a crown witness. Abstrak Penelitian ini membahas masalah Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Saksi Mahkota dalam Proses Pemeriksaan Perkara Pidana. Selanjutnya data yang diperoleh baik melalui studi kepustakaan maupun hasil wawancara dianalisis dengan menggunakan metode analisis deskriptif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa, pelaksanaan perlindungan terhadap saksi mahkota dinilai telah terlaksana hal ini dapat di lihat dari banyaknya bentuk perlindungan yang dapat diberikan kepada saksi khususnya saksi mahkota, baik dalam bentuk perlindungan fisik, psikis maupun hukum. Bentuk perlindungan fisik dan psikis berupa Perlindungan atas keamanan diri serta bebas dari ancaman dan tekanan pihak lain. Sedangkan bentuk perlindungan hukum berupa Saksi tidak dapat dituntut secara hukum baik pidana maupun perdata atas kesaksiannya dan Penanganan secara khusus bagi saksi yang juga pelaku tindak pidana yang sama (saksi mahkota). Hal ini menunjukkan adanya upaya realisasi dari aturan-aturan hukum tentang perlindungan hukum terhadap saksi mahkota. Untuk mewujutkan perlindungan hukum terhadap saksi mahkota yang lebih baik perlu adanya upaya peningkatan sosialisasi aturan-aturan hukum terkait perlindungan saksi kepada masyarakat dengan demikian masyarakat akan lebih memahami bahwa ada suatu mekanisme aturan hukum yang mengatur perlindungan terhadap seorang saksi mahkota.

Regarding the regulation and application of the crown witness by the public prosecutor in handling corruption case as stated in the Criminal Law of Formil applicable in Indonesia in this case KUHAP (Indonesian Criminal Procedural Law Code) especially Article 142 Indonesian Criminal Procedural Law Code still cause the existence of obscurity of norm so that in practice of judiciary there is no definite measure about application criteria a crown witness by a public prosecutor in the proof of a criminal case, especially a criminal act of corruption. As for the matters discussed in this regard that is about 1) Arrangement of the Public Prosecutor's Authority on the application of the crown witness in the proving of corruption crime according to the perspective of Indonesian Positive Law (Ius Constitutum) covers the setting up of the crown witnesses in positive law in Indonesia as well as comparative regulation of crown witnesses in the United States and the Netherlands and 2) Formulation of Authority for the Public Prosecutor on the application of the crown witness in the proving of corruption in accordance with the perspective of the coming Law (ius Constituendum) includes the appropriate term used to mention the crown witness, the limits of the application of the crown witness, the plea bargain adaptation system in the Positive Law in Indonesia, the requirements of being a crown witness, the proper punishment of the crown witness and the formulation of Article 142 of the Indonesian Criminal Procedural Law Code so as to grant the limitative authority to the Public Prosecutor against the application of the crown witness
 Mengenai pengaturan dan penerapan saksi mahkota oleh penuntut umum dalam penanganan perkara tindak pidana korupsi sebagaimana tercantum dalam Hukum Pidana Formil yang berlaku di Indonesia dalam hal ini yaitu KUHAP khususnya Pasal 142 KUHAP masih menimbulkan adanya kekaburan norma sehingga dalam praktek peradilan belum terdapat ukuran yang pasti mengenai kriteria penerapan saksi mahkota oleh penuntut umum dalam pembuktian suatu perkara pidana khususnya tindak pidana korupsi. Adapun yang dibahas dalam hal ini yaitu mengenai 1) Pengaturan Kewenangan Penuntut Umum terhadap penerapan saksi mahkota dalam pembuktian tindak pidana korupsi menurut perspektif Hukum Positif Indonesia (Ius Constitutum) meliputi pengaturan saksi mahkota dalam hukum positif di Indonesia serta perbandingan pengaturan saksi mahkota di Negara Amerika Serikat dan Belanda dan 2) Formulasi Kewenangan Bagi Penuntut Umum terhadap penerapan saksi mahkota dalam pembuktian tindak pidana korupsi menurut perspektif Hukum yang akan datang (Ius Constituendum) meliputi istilah yang tepat dipakai untuk menyebutkan saksi mahkota, batas-batas penerapan saksi mahkota, adaptasi plea bargain system dalam Hukum Positif di Indonesia, syarat-syarat menjadi saksi mahkota, pemidanaan yang tepat diterapkan terhadap saksi mahkota serta formulasi Pasal 142 KUHAP sehingga memberikan kewenangan secara limitatif kepada Penuntut Umum terhadap penerapan saksi mahkota.

Tujuan penelitian ini untuk mengetahui (1) eksistensi saksi mahkota dalam proses peradilan pidana di Indonesia berdasarkan asas non self incrimination; dan (2) perlindungan hukum terhadap saksi mahkota. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa (1) Eksistensi saksi mahkota dalam proses peradilan pidana di Indonesia berdasarkan asas non self incrimination sudah lazim digunakan. Kehadiran saksi mahkota baru dikatakan tidak bertentangan dengan asas non self incrimination jika dilakukan sesuai dengan apa yang diatur dalam Pasal 199 jo. Pasal 200 Rancangan KUHAP versi Januari 2009; dan (2) Perlindungan hukum terhadap saksi mahkota, seperti perlindungan terhadap saksi sebagaimana diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2006 tentang Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban, namun kepada saksi mahkota diberikan juga keringanan hukuman bahkan dibebaskan dari penuntutan jika peranannya dianggap yang paling ringan.
 The objective of this research to reveal (1) the existence of a crown witness in the criminal justice process in Indonesia based on the principle of non self-incrimination; and (2) legal protection of crown witnesses. The result of this research indicates that (1) The existence of crown witnesses in criminal justice processes in Indonesia based on the principle of non-self-incrimination is commonly used. The presence of a new crown witness is said not to contradict the principle of non-self-incrimination if it is carried out in accordance with Article 199 jo. Article 200 of the January 2009 version of the Draft Criminal Procedure Code; and (2) Legal protection for crown witnesses, such as protection for witnesses as regulated in Law Number 13 of 2006 concerning Protection of Witnesses and Victims, however crown witnesses are also given leniency and even exemption from prosecution if their role is considered the lightest.

The absence of a clear normative interpretation related to witnesses who are also criminal perpetrators in the Indonesian court has controversy on the theoretical level. In practice, the practitioners adopt a concept known in other countries. However, in adopting ideas from other countries, practitioners are often trapped in practitioners’ paradigms. Translating the perpetrators’ witnesses such as crown witnesses, justice collaborators (JC), and whistleblowers (wb,) are not the concepts comprehensively. In the end, the witness being denied the rights of the perpetrators, namely right non-self-incrimination. The paper offers a concept for finding solutions in the use of witnesses who are also as criminal perpetrators in epistemological basis. These considerations are used to provide a coherent way based on the principle to justify the use of witness evidence from the criminal perpetrators. The purpose is to accord with the principle of due process of law, not to clash the principle of non-self-incrimination in proving the search of material truth.