Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) mengatur bahwa setiap perbuatan yang memenuhi unsur tindak pidana harus diproses melalui mekanisme peradilan pidana. Meskipun eigenrichting tidak diatur sebagai tindak pidana tersendiri, perbuatan tersebut pada umumnya memenuhi unsur tindak pidana sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 170 KUHP, Pasal 351 KUHP, dan Pasal 55 ayat (1) ke-1 KUHP. Dalam praktiknya, tindakan eigenrichting yang dilakukan secara bersama-sama masih menimbulkan persoalan mengenai penerapan sanksi pidana, dasar pertimbangan hakim, dan disparitas pidana terhadap para pelaku.

Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis penerapan sanksi pidana terhadap pelaku eigenrichting secara bersama-sama di Pengadilan Negeri Banda Aceh, mengkaji dasar pertimbangan hakim dalam membedakan penerapan pasal dan jenis pidana, serta menganalisis penyebab terjadinya disparitas pidana.

Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis empiris dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, kasus, dan konseptual. Data diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan, analisis Putusan Nomor 46/Pid.B/2025/PN Bna, Putusan Nomor 47/Pid.B/2025/PN Bna, Putusan Nomor 48/Pid.B/2025/PN Bna, serta wawancara dengan hakim Pengadilan Negeri Banda Aceh.

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penerapan sanksi pidana terhadap pelaku eigenrichting dilakukan melalui Pasal 170 KUHP, Pasal 351 KUHP, dan Pasal 55 ayat (1) ke-1 KUHP sesuai dengan unsur tindak pidana yang terbukti. Dasar pertimbangan hakim meliputi peran masing-masing terdakwa, unsur kesengajaan, akibat yang ditimbulkan, serta kondisi individual terdakwa. Disparitas pidana merupakan konsekuensi penerapan prinsip individualisasi pidana dan pertanggungjawaban pidana individual, sehingga perbedaan pidana didasarkan pada tingkat kesalahan dan keterlibatan masing-masing terdakwa serta tetap mencerminkan keadilan, kepastian hukum, dan kemanfaatan.

Disarankan agar hakim menguraikan pertimbangan hukum secara lebih komprehensif dalam menilai peran, tingkat kesengajaan, akibat yang ditimbulkan, dan kondisi individual masing-masing terdakwa sehingga penerapan sanksi pidana dan disparitas pidana memiliki dasar yang objektif, proporsional, serta menjamin keadilan, kepastian hukum, dan kemanfaatan.

Abstract—The Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana or KUHP) stipulates that any conduct fulfilling the elements of a criminal offence must be adjudicated through the criminal justice system. Although eigenrichting (vigilantism or self-help justice) is not specifically regulated as an independent criminal offence, such conduct generally satisfies the elements of criminal offences as prescribed under Article 170 of the KUHP, Article 351 of the KUHP, and Article 55 paragraph (1) point 1 of the KUHP. In practice, acts of eigenrichting committed collectively continue to raise legal issues concerning the application of criminal sanctions, the legal reasoning adopted by judges, and sentencing disparities among offenders. This study aims to analyze the application of criminal sanctions against perpetrators of collective eigenrichting at the Banda Aceh District Court, examine the judicial considerations underlying the differentiation in the application of statutory provisions and types of punishment, and identify the factors contributing to sentencing disparities. This research employs an empirical juridical method using statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. The data were collected through library research, an analysis of Decision No. 46/Pid.B/2025/PN Bna, Decision No. 47/Pid.B/2025/PN Bna, and Decision No. 48/Pid.B/2025/PN Bna, as well as interviews with judges of the Banda Aceh District Court. The findings indicate that criminal sanctions against perpetrators of eigenrichting are imposed pursuant to Article 170 of the KUHP, Article 351 of the KUHP, and Article 55 paragraph (1) point 1 of the KUHP, depending on the constituent elements of the criminal offence established during the proceedings. Judicial considerations include the respective role of each defendant, the element of intent, the consequences arising from the offence, and the individual circumstances of each defendant. Sentencing disparities constitute a consequence of the application of the principles of individualized sentencing and individual criminal responsibility. Accordingly, differences in sentencing are based on the degree of culpability and participation of each defendant while remaining consistent with the principles of justice, legal certainty, and legal expediency. This study recommends that judges provide more comprehensive legal reasoning when assessing the role, degree of intent, consequences of the offence, and individual circumstances of each defendant. Such an approach would ensure that the imposition of criminal sanctions and any resulting sentencing disparities are founded upon objective and proportionate considerations while safeguarding the principles of justice, legal certainty, and legal expediency.