Reformulation of Expert Qualifications in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System (A Comparative Study between Indonesia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia)

Safira Widya Attidhira

Abstract


This research aims to compare the regulations regarding experts in advanced countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, to then be used as examples for reformulating expert standardization in Indonesia. This study employs a normative juridical method using secondary data consisting of primary legal materials related to experts and secondary legal materials, such as international journals and books. The approach used in this research includes conceptual, legislative, and comparative approaches with other countries. The results of the study show that the United Kingdom has Civil Procedure Rules that extensively regulate the rights and obligations of experts, while the United States has the Federal Rules of Evidence, which also specifically regulate the qualification standards for experts. In Australia, regulations related to experts have been established in the Evidence Act 1995 and Federal Court Rules 2011, which often discuss the code of conduct for experts in court. This research concludes that Indonesia needs to adopt more detailed regulations regarding experts in the criminal justice system, starting with the creation of a code of conduct containing requirements to become an expert, the rights and obligations of experts, and the mechanism for the process of providing expert witness testimony. However, it is not sufficient to stop there; there must be encouragement from the authorities to ensure that this code of conduct is read and understood by prospective experts. Additionally, there should be standards for qualifications, experience, and the mechanism for providing testimony due to the lack of credibility and reliability of an expert presented in court.

Keywords


Comparison; Expert; Proof; Reformulation

Full Text:

PDF

References


E. Ubwarin, “Keabsahan Keterangan Ahli Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi,” Sasi, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2014.

T. Ward, “Expert evidence and the Law Commission: implementation without legislation?,” in Expert Evidence and Scientific Proof in Criminal Trials, Routledge, 2017, pp. 553–568.

K. N. Arini and H. Sujarwo, “Kedudukan Saksi Ahli dalam Persidangan Perkara Pidana,” Syariati J. Stud. Al-Qur’an dan Huk., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 245–256, 2021.

I. Amarini and R. Kartikawati, “Strengthening the Position of Expert Witness in Judicial Process,” J. Media Huk., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 44–54, 2020.

L. Raspati, “KEBERADAAN AHLI DAN IMPLIKASI NEGATIFNYA TERHADAP ASAS PERADILAN CEPAT, SEDERHANA DAN BIAYA RINGAN (SUATU KRITIK TERHADAP PEMERIKSAAN AHLI DALAM PERADILAN PIDANA DI INDONESIA)(THE PRESENCE OF EXPERT AND THE IMPLICATION TO THE PRINCIPLE OF FAST, SIMPLE AND LOW COST JUDICIAL PROCESS),” Negara Huk. Membangun Huk. untuk Keadilan dan Kesejaht., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 249–273, 2016.

F. Fadhlurrahman and M. Din, “Kualifikasi Ahli Dalam Sistem Pembuktian Pidana Indonesia,” J. Ilm. Mhs. Bid. Huk. Pidana, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 166–178, 2018.

R. Q. A’yun, “The Problems of Expert Witness in Criminal Law,” Indon. L. Rev., vol. 4, p. 340, 2014.

J. Sitompul, “Improving the Role of Experts Under Indonesian Criminal Procedure Law: Lessons Learned From the Dutch Legal System,” Indon. L. Rev., vol. 8, p. 109, 2018.

I. D. Kurniawan, “Eksistensi Keterangan Ahli dalam Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Korupsi,” Gudang J. Multidisiplin Ilmu, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9–12, 2023.

Y. A. T. Ohoiwutun, “Kesaksian ahli jiwa dalam pertanggungjawaban pidana penganiayaan berat,” J. Yudisial, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2015.

G. A. Rahmah, D. Haiti, and A. S. Tornado, “OBJEKTIVITAS KETERANGAN AHLI DALAM PERSIDANGAN PERKARA PIDANA MENURUT KUHAP,” J. Ilmu Huk. Prima, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 275–286, 2023.

T. A. Christiani, “Normative and empirical research methods: Their usefulness and relevance in the study of law as an object,” Procedia-Social Behav. Sci., vol. 219, pp. 201–207, 2016.

Y. Nurhayati, I. Ifrani, and M. Y. Said, “Metodologi Normatif Dan Empiris Dalam Perspektif Ilmu Hukum,” J. Penegakan Huk. Indones., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2021.

S. HuygHe and A. Chan, “The evolution of expert witness law under UK and US jurisdictions,” Const. L. Int’l, vol. 8, p. 14, 2013.

P. Eisenberg, “The New Criteria for Expert Evidence in British Courts-Case Law, Statutory Rules and a Negligence Case Study,” PEOPLE Int. J. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 458–473, 2018.

D. A. Krauss and J. D. Lieberman, “The admissibility of expert testimony in the United States, the Commonwealth, and elsewhere,” in Psychological expertise in court, Routledge, 2016, pp. 23–46.

A. Buskirk, “What are the Requirements for Appointment of an Expert Under International Criminal Law and What is the Law Regarding the Examination of an In-House Expert?,” 2009.

A. Bain, “Considering the Proposed Changes to the Federal Rules to Civil Procedure regarding Expert Witness Discovery,” US Att’ys Bull., vol. 58, p. 1, 2010.

W. Sulistyani, “The Admissibility of Scientific Expert Evidence Under Indonesian Criminal Justice System,” Sriwij. Law Rev., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 152–161, 2019.

F. Z. Dalimunthe, “The Comparison of Evidence in State Administrative Court Between Indonesia and South Korea,” J. Huk. dan Peradil., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 232–254, 2020.

P. J. Umboh, “Fungsi dan Manfaat Saksi Ahli Memberikan Keterangan dalam Proses Perkara Pidana,” Lex Crim., vol. 2, no. 2, 2013.

S. Wijaya and S. Suparno, “Legal Strength of Evidence Photocopy of Letter or Written Evidence in Civil Matter,” 2022.

R. Susanti, “Peran dokter sebagai saksi ahli di persidangan,” J. Kesehat. Andalas, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 101–104, 2013.

D. Sudyana and S. Soni, “Etika Dan Profesionalisme Saksi Ahli Forensik,” J. CoSciTech (Computer Sci. Inf. Technol., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 13–20, 2020.

A. Asmayanti, “Linguistik forensik: linguis sebagai saksi ahli di persidangan,” Ruangguru. com, 2019.

J. M. Chin, M. Lutsky, and I. E. Dror, “The biases of experts: An empirical analysis of expert witness challenges,” Man. LJ, vol. 42, p. 21, 2019.

J. M. Chin, M. S. Roque, and R. McFadden, “The new psychology of expert witness procedure,” Sydney Law Rev., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 69–96, 2020.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/ldj.6.1.53-63

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Law Development Journal has been indexed in: