RECONSTRUCTION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MENS REA TO PROVE CORRUPTIONBASED ON JUSTICE VALUES

Arif Awaludin

Abstract


This research aims to reveal the inconsistency of proof in corruption. Proving corruption begins with the proving of financial loss of state, followed by proving act- wrong.Mens rea reflects the mental element of a crime, whereas criminal responsibility reflects the responsibility of the defendant. The doctrine states no punishment without fault. Some facts indicate that a vonis court without any proof ofmens rea. On the other hand, the Corruption Eradication Commission stops a corruption case that harms the state by reason of not finding mens rea in the perpetrator.The case of corruption at Jakarta “Sumber Waras” hospital is stopped.

The research was conducted by descriptive method of analysis with normative juridical approach through statute approach, conceptual approach and criminal case approach, in this case court decision and legal conclusion of Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). The research concludes that there has been inconsistency of proving mens rea in the perpetrators of corruption. This condition will lead to over-criminalization, weak public confidenceinlawenforcementagenciesandthefurtherthegoaloflawenforcementto achieve certainty and justice. It requires the reconstruction of the type of mens rea in criminal law enforcement, especially corruption. This is reinforced by the Government Administration Act.

Key word: Recontruction, Mens Rea, Corruption

 

Full Text:

PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.