Compensation for accidents that resulted in death in case number 315/pid.b/2018/pn. skt in a restorative justice perspective
Ditta Ardian, Supanto, Mohammad Jamin
This study aims to determine the reasons for the lightness of the criminal sanctions imposed by the judge in case No. 315 / Pid.B / 2018 / PN SKT and the judge's consideration in providing compensation in case No. 315 / Pid.B / 2018 / PN SKT in terms of the concept of restorative justice. This research is a normative legal research, which is juridical-normative in nature. This research is carried out in the following stages: First, interpretation of various laws and regulations used to decide and resolve cases of providing compensation for accidents resulting in death in case No. 315 / Pid.B / 2018 / PN SKT. Second, an assessment of the judges' considerations is carried out to find out the reasons the judge used in his decision based on the concept of restorative justice. Based on the results of the research, it is known that, First, financial assistance and compensation to the victim's family can be the main consideration for the panel of judges in giving a light judgment on the defendant's act of losing a person's life. In the verdict, the judge made new categories of mitigating matters in the form of: (1) Forgiveness of the victim's family; (2) Application for release from the victim's family; (3) Material Compensation; (4) Providing work to the victim's family; and, (5) providing scholarships for the younger siblings of the victim, as a result compensation for the victim's family is the main reason for imposing criminal sanctions that relieve the defendant. Second, in terms of the concept of restorative justice, the considerations in the decision are sectorally appropriate, where the parties settle their cases by restoring peace and peace between the perpetrator and the victim's family, but to restore justice for the community is relatively unrealized. This condition was minimized by the judge as representing the sense of justice in society by convicting the defendant with imprisonment even though the imprisonment decision was light.