Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Tindak Pidana Kepemilikan Senjata Api Tanpa Izin Berdasarkan Studi Kasus Putusan No.1713/Pid.Sus/2020/Pn.Jkt.Brt

Rajagukguk, Viola Yosefine Andriani (2025) Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Tindak Pidana Kepemilikan Senjata Api Tanpa Izin Berdasarkan Studi Kasus Putusan No.1713/Pid.Sus/2020/Pn.Jkt.Brt. S1 thesis, Universitas Kristen Indonesia.

	Text (Hal_Judul_Daftar_Isi_Abstrak) HalJudulAbstrakDaftarIsi.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (1MB)
	Text (BAB_I) BABI.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (458kB)
	Text (BAB_II) BABII.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (554kB)
	Text (BAB_III) BABIII.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (521kB)
	Text (BAB_IV) BABIV.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (473kB)
	Text (BAB_V) BABV.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (238kB)
	Text (DAFTAR_PUSTAKA) DaftarPustaka.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (253kB)

Abstract

Kepemilikan senjata api tanpa izin berdasarkan Putusan Nomor 1713/PID.SUS/2020/PN.JKT.BRT merupakan perbuatan yang secara tegas diatur dalam Pasal 1 Ayat (1) Undang-Undang Darurat Nomor 12 Tahun 1951, dengan ancaman pidana yang berat, yaitu hukuman mati, penjara seumur hidup, atau pidana penjara paling lama dua puluh tahun. Kasus ini menjadi penting karena tingginya angka penyalahgunaan senjata api di Indonesia dapat meningkatkan tindak pidana kekerasan. / The research findings indicate that in the ruling, the judge decided that the airgun owned by the defendant is classified as a firearm as regulated under Emergency Law No. 12 of 1951. The judge did not take into account the technical aspects and fundamental differences between an airgun and a firearm, as well as the fact that an airgun does not use explosive materials to discharge a projectile. Additionally, the judge did not consider the irrelevance of Emergency Law No. 12 of 1951 in the context of current technological developments.

Actions (login required)

View Item