COUNTRIESVOORTGEZETTE HANDLING IN SOME CIVIL LAW SYSTEM COUNTRIES
Main Article Content
Abstract
Comparison of laws between countries will provide a broad picture of the similarities and differences of each country. However, comparing criminal law is not just looking for similarities and differences between the criminal law of other countries and the criminal law in force in Indonesia. More than that, it is to know and understand criminal law in detail in other countries. In this case, it should be used as comparative input in forming and developing national criminal law to reform federal criminal law. The institution of concurrent acts in criminal law is not recognized in countries that adhere to the Anglo-Saxon or the standard law system. On the other hand, in countries that adhere to the continental European system or the civil law system, institutions recognize concurrent actions. Countries that recognize direct travel are Germany, the Netherlands and Indonesia. Although based on the history of continuing efforts originating from Germany, Germany does not place continuing actions in the Criminal Code, but only in jurisprudence. Meanwhile, the Netherlands regulates continuing activities in Article 56 of the Criminal Code, and according to the concordance principle of the Indonesian Criminal Code, it also governs the declaration of conformity as contained in Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Jacobs, J. B. (2002). Hate crime: Criminal law and identity politics: Author’s summary. Theoretical Criminology, 6(4), 481-484.
Stuntz, W. J. (2001). The pathological politics of criminal law. Mich. L. Rev., 100, 505.
Heinz, J. P., Gettleman, R. W., & Seeskin, M. A. (1969). Legislative politics and the criminal law. Nw. UL Rev., 64, 277.
Criminal Justice and Social Reconstruction, Rouledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. London;1949.
Shaw, M. N. (2017). International law. Cambridge university press.
Poudret, J. F., & Besson, S. (2007). Comparative law of international arbitration. Sweet & Maxwell.
Kahn-Freund, O. (1974). On uses and misuses of comparative law. Mod. L. Rev., 37, 1.
Amiruddin, M. (2017). Comparison of the Implementation of Euthanasia in Countries Adhering to the Continental European Legal System and the Anglo-Saxon Legal System. Jurisprudentie: Jurusan Ilmu Hukum Fakultas Syariah dan Hukum, 4(1), 83-102.
Nurhardianto, F. (2015). Indonesian Legal System and Legal Position. Jurnal Tapis: Jurnal Teropong Aspirasi Politik Islam, 11(1), 33-44.
Soekanto, S. (2007). Normative legal research: A brief overview.
Singer, J. W. (2008). Normative methods for lawyers. UCLA L. Rev., 56, 899.
zum Strafgezetzbuch, M. K. (2016). StGB, Band 2: §§ 38-79b StGB, 3. Auflage, CH Beck.
Maknun, L., & Rani, F. H. (2020). Perbandingan Konsep Penerapan Mediasi Penal Dalam Penyelesaian Perkara Pidana Di Indonesia Dan Negara Lain. Lex Librum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 6(2), 119-129.
Eddy O.S Hiariej, Prinsip-Prinsip Hukum Pidana, Cahaya Atma Pustaka, Yogyakarta, 2014, hlm. 346.
Jan Remmelink, Criminal Law, Commentary on the Most Important Articles of the Dutch Criminal Code and Their Equivalents in the Indonesian Criminal Code, PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta, 2003, hlm. 571.
Cafritz, E., & Tene, O. (2002). Article 113-7 of the French Penal Code: The Passive Personality Principle. Colum. J. Transnat'l L., 41, 585.
Sherry, A. H. (1961). The French Penal Code.
Orland, L., & Cachera, C. (1995). Corporate crime and punishment in France: Criminal responsibility of legal entities (Personnes Morales) under the new French criminal code (Nouveau Code Penal). Conn. J. Int'l L., 11, 111.
Sarpy, L. (1960). Concursus: Interpleader in Louisiana. Tul. L. Rev., 35, 531.
Stuckenberg, C. F. (2005). A Cure for Concursus Delictorum in International Criminal Law?.
De Haan, J. (2002). The new Dutch law on euthanasia. Med. L. Rev., 10, 57.
Fred B. Rothman, The Dutch Penal Code, translated by Louise Rayar and Stafford Wadswoth Colorado, 1997. Hlm.2.
Jan Remmelink, Hukum Pidana, Op.Cit, hlm. 570-571.
For example, Remmelink cites HR 30 June 1913, NJ 1913, 1097, W 9519. This arrest concerns the case of a postman in Vaals. In the letter, he found a toto form (Wettzettel). The postman concerned took the form and exchanged it for another sheet of paper. The first action he committed was a violation of the provisions of Article 372 (opening the letter by the postman), and the second was a violation of the provisions of Article 373 (changing the contents of the letter). The Hoge Raad here turned out to reject the application of the provisions of Article 56 because neither the actions nor the criminal provisions in question could be categorized as similar.
Bing Siong, H. (1961). An outline of the recent history of Indonesian criminal law (p. 84). Brill.
Ramadani, S., Danil, E., Sabri, F., & Zurnetti, A. (2021). Criminal law politics on regulation of criminal actions in Indonesia. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S1), 1373-1380.
Penjelasan RKUHP September 2019
De Haan, J. (2002). The new Dutch law on euthanasia. Med. L. Rev., 10, 57.
Radu, S. (2020). Introductory Discussions on the Dutch Criminal Code. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Administratio, 11(1).
Loebby Loqman, Trial, Completion and Combined Crimes, Universitas Tarumanegara UPT Penerbitan, Jakarta, hlm.111