Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Berdasarkan pasal 192 jo. pasal 64 ayat (3) undang-undang nomor 36 ta-hun 2009 tentang kesehatan jo. pasal 55 ayat (1) ke-1 kuhp, mengenai tindak pidana perdagangan organ tubuh manusia terutama organ ginjal yang dilakukan secara bersama-sama dan dikenakan juga pasal 2 undang-undang nomor 21 ta-hun 2007 tentang ptppo jo. pasal 55 ayat (1) kuhp dengan jumlah terdakwa 4 (empat), yaitu agung setiawan (terdakwa i), deni fajar muharam (terdakwa ii), ahmad junaedi (terdakwa iii), ali suryadi (terdakwa iv). dalam putusan nomor 587/pid.b/2019/pn jkt pst para terdakwa memiliki peran yang berbeda namun ha-kim menjatuhkan hukuman yang sama. tujuan penelitian studi kasus ini untuk menjelaskan adanya putusan hakim yang tidak sesuai dengan kualitas perbuatan pelaku dan adanya putusan hakim yang tidak sesuai dengan kepastian hukum, kemanfaatan, dan keadilan. penelitian ini dilakukan dengan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendeka-tan studi kasus. jenis pendekatan ini dilakukan dengan cara meneliti yang tertulis dalam putusan hakim serta perundang-undangan dan bahan hukum sekunder lainnya, sehingga dilakukan dengan cara menelaah bahan pustaka atau data sekunder yang berkaitan erat dengan masalah. berdasarkan hasil analisis terhadap putusan nomor 587/pid.b/2019/pn jkt pst menunjukkan bahwa putusan hakim dalam penjatuhan pidana terhadap para terdakwa tindak pidana perdagangan organ tubuh manusia terutama organ ginjal tidak sesuai dengan kualitas perbuatan terdakwa dan tidak sesuai dengan kepas-tian hukum, kemanfaatan, dan keadilan. berhubungan dengan itu, maka putusan majelis hakim dalam putusan perkara yang memilih dakwaan kedua pasal 192 jo. pasal 64 ayat (3) undang-undang nomor 36 tahun 2009 tentang kesehatan, seharusnya hakim menjatuhkan hukuman yang berbeda terhadap masing-masing terdakwa sesuai dengan perbuatannya dengan penjatuhan hukuman tetap dibawah hukuman maksimal 10 (sepuluh) tahun namun lebih berat dari 2 tahun 6 bulan dan majelis hakim dapat menerapkan peradilan in absentia terhadap terdakwa iv ali suryadi. disarankan kepada hakim untuk menerapkan aturan yang tegas, efektif, dan maksimal mengenai penjatuhan hukuman tindak pidana organ tubuh manusia teru-tama ginjal dengan harapan dapat menegakkan kepastian hukum, kemanfaatan, dan keadilan.

Based on Article 192 jo. Article 64 paragraph (3) of Law Number 36 of 2009 concerning Health jo. Article 55 paragraph (1) of the 1st Criminal Code, regarding the Crime of Trafficking in Human Organs, especially kidney organs, which was carried out jointly and also subject to Article 2 of Law Number 21 of 2007 concerning PTPPO jo. Article 55 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code with 4 (four) defendants, namely Agung Setiawan (defendant I), Deni Fajar Muharam (defendant II), Ahmad Junaedi (defendant III), Ali Suryadi (defendant IV). In decision number 587/Pid.B/2019/Pn Jkt Pst the defendants had different roles but the judges handed down the same sentence. The purpose of this case study research is to explain the existence of a judge's decision that is not in accordance with the quality of the perpetrator's actions and the existence of a judge's decision that is not in accordance with legal certainty, expediency, and justice. This research was conducted using normative juridical research with a case study approach. This type of approach is carried out by examining what is written in the judge's decision as well as legislation and other secondary legal materials, so that it is carried out by examining literature or secondary data that is closely related to the problem. Based on the results of an analysis of Decision Number 587/Pid.B/2019/Pn Jkt Pst it shows that the judge's decision in imposing a sentence on the defendants for the Crime of Trafficking in Human Organs, especially kidney organs, is not in accordance with the quality of the defendant's actions and is not in accordance with legal certainty , expediency, and justice. In connection with that, the decision of the panel of judges in the decision of the case which chose the second charge of Article 192 jo. Article 64 paragraph (3) of Law Number 36 of 2009 concerning Health, the judge should have imposed a different sentence on each defendant in accordance with his actions with the imposition of a fixed sentence under a maximum sentence of 10 (ten) years but more than 2 years and 6 months and the panel of judges can apply trial in absentia against defendant IV Ali Suryadi. It is suggested to judges to apply strict, effective, and maximum rules regarding the imposition of penalties for criminal acts of human organs, especially the kidneys in the hope of upholding legal certainty, expediency and justice.