The Position of Polygraph (Lie Detector) Examination Results in the Criminal Evidence System
Abstract
The topic of this research is "The Position of Polygraph (Lie Detector) Examination Results in the Criminal Evidence System (Case Study of Supreme Court Decision Number 813 K/pPID/2023)". This research analyzes two problem formulations, namely First, what is the position and validity of polygraph (Lie Detector) examination results in the criminal evidence system. Second, How are the judge's considerations in assessing the position of Polygraph (Lie Detector) examination results in Supreme Court Decision Number 813 K/PID/2023. The research method used is normative juridical. The results of the study show that explicitly the polygraph does not yet have legal legitimacy recognized in Article 184 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, so it cannot be used as a stand-alone evidence tool. However, scientifically the polygraph has relevance as a tool to test the honesty of statements and support the proof of material truth. In Supreme Court Decision Number 813 K/PID/2023, the judge classified polygraph examination results as a scientific evidentiary tool that can be considered through the category of expert testimony or documentary evidence as referred to in Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Although polygraph results do not have the power of proof in themselves, the judge still uses them as supporting material in forming a conviction of the defendant's guilt. However, the legal approach in this decision remains legalistic and formalistic, as it does not fully accommodate the scientific value and objectivity of the polygraph as a modern means of proof. Therefore, a renewal of the evidentiary paradigm is needed that allows judges to interpret scientific evidence more openly, without ignoring the principles of fair trial and material truth in the Indonesian criminal justice system.
Keywords
References
Journals:
Abdul Hakim Barkatullah, 2021, “Scientific Evidence in Indonesian Criminal Prosedure Law”, Journal of Law and Policy Studies 6, no. 2.
J. F. Nijboer, 2020, “The Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in Dutch Criminal Procedure,” Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy 50, no. 3.
Jan de Keijser and Peter J. van Koppen, 2020, “Expert Evidence and Judicial Reasoning in the Netherlands,” Psychology, Crime & Law 26, no. 9.
Leonard Saxe, Denise Dougherty, and Theodore Cross, 1985 “The Validity of Polygraph Testing”, American Psychologist 40 no.3.
Raskin, D.C., and Honts, C. R., 2022, “The Polygraph in 21st Century Forensic Pratice.”, Forensic Science International Reports 8.
Vrij, Aldert, and Granhag, Par-Anders, 2021, “Eliciting Cues to Deception and Truth: What Matters Are the Questions Asked,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 30, no. 2.
Books:
Andi Hmazah, 1984, Pengantar Hukum Acara Pidana di Indonesia, Penerbit Chalia Indonesia, Jakarta.
---, 2005, Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana, Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
---, 2014, Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.
---, 2018, Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.
---, 2020, Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.
Aristotle, 1953, Nicomachean Ethics, terj. W.D. Ross, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barda Nawawi Arief, 2008, Bunga Rampai Kebijakan Hukum Pidana: Perkembangan penyusunan Konsep KUHP Baru, Jakarta, Kencana.
---, 2019, Teori dan Filsafat Pembuktian dalam Hukum Acara Pidana, PT Citra Aditya Bakti, Bandung.
Didik Endro Purwoleksono, 2015, Hukum Acara Pidana, Surabaya, Airlangga University Press.
---, 2019, Hukum Acara Pidaa, Airlangga Uviversity Press, Surabaya.
---, 2019, Hukum Acara Pidana, Surabaya, Airlangga University Press.
Djudju Sudjana, 2020, Asas Pembuktian dalam Hukum Acara Pidana, Refika Aditama, Bandung.
De Keijser and van Koppen, “Expert Evidence,”.
David T. Lykken, 2019, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (New York: Plenum Press.
Eddy OS.Hiarieej, 2012, Teori dan Hukum Pembuktian, Penerbit Erlangga, Jakarta.
Edmond Pereira, Interview on Use of Polygraph in Singapore Criminal Process, dikutip dalam Channel News Asia.
Imam Yunianto, 2022, Perancangan Lie Detector Menggunakan Arduino, Jupiter 3, no. 1, Palembang.
Jeremy McBride, 2021, “Fair Trial: Rights and Remedies,” European Human Rights Law Review 4.
Jack Kitaef, Forensic Psychology, 2011 (College Park: University of Maryland,) diterjemahkan ke dalam Bahasa Indonesia oleh Helly Prajitno Soetjipto dan Sri Mulyantini Soetjipto, 2017, Psikologi Forensik, Pustaka Pelajar , Yogyakarta.
Jennifer M. Brown and Elizabeth A. Campbell, 2010, The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Judy Hails, Criminal Evidence, 2005, USA: Cengage Learning.
Jimly Asshiddiqie, 2017, Pokok-Pokok Hukum Tata Negara Pasca Reformasi, Bhuana Ilmu Populer, Jakarta.
John Rawls, 1999, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional, 2014, Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia, Edisi IV Cet, II : Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta.
Luhut M.P. Pangaribuan, 2022, Hukum Pembuktian Pidana: Perspektif Hak Asasi Mausia, Prenadamedia, Jakarta.
Lilik Mulyadi, 2011, Hukum Acara Pidana: Suatu Telaah Doktrinal Normatif¸Bandung, Alumni.
Neil MacCormick, 1978, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nijboer, “The Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in Dutch Criminal Procedure,”.
Muladi dan Barda Nawawi Arief, 2010, Teori dan Kebijakan Pidana, Alumni, Bandung.
Muladi, 2002, Hak Asasi Manusia, Politik, dan Sistem Peradilan Pidana, Badan Penerbit UNDIP, Semarang.
M. Yahya Harahap, 2006 Permasalahan Dan Penerapan KUHAP Pemeriksaan Sidang Pengadilan Banding Kasasi Dan Peninjauan Kembali, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.
--- , 2021, Pembahasan KUHAP, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.
Martiman Prodjohamidjojo, 1983, Sistem Pembuktian dan Alat-alat Bukti, Penerbit Chalia Indonesia, Jakarta.
Monica, Dona Raisa. 2018 Penggunaan Alat Bantu Pendeteksi Kebohongan (Lie Detector) Dalam Proses Penyidikan, Fakultas Hukum Universitas Lampung, Lampung.
Paul Moedikno Moeliono, 2008 dikutip dari Moch Haikhal Kurniawan, , Penggunaan Metode Sketsa Wajah Dalam Menemukan Pelaku Tindak Pidana, Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Surakarta.
Putu Tissya Poppy Aristian dan I Wayan Bela Siki Layang, 2022 Pengaturan Alat Bantu Pendeteksi Kebohongan (Lie Detector) Di Pengadilan Dalam Pembuktian Perkara Pidana, Kertha Semaya 10, no. 3, Denpasar.
Ramelan, 2006, Hukum Acara Pidana Teori Dan Implrmrntasi, Sumber Ilmu Jaya, Jakarta.
Robert Alexy, 1989, A Theory of Legal Argumentation, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
The Straits Times, “Polygraph Tests Common in Police Investigations but Not Evidence in Court,” The Straits Times.
Gustav Radbruch, 1950, “Legal Philosophy,” dalam The Legal Philosophies of Lask, Radbruch, and Dabin, diterj. Kurt Wilk, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Soetandyo Wignjosoebroto, 2008, pengantar untuk Hak atas Peradilan Yang Adil, Yurisprudensi Pengadilan HAM Eropa, Komite HAM PBB dan Pengadilan HAM Inter-Amerika, oleh Uli Parulian Sihombing, The Indonesian Legal Resource Center (ILRC), Jakarta.
Sudikno Mertokusumo, 2013, Penemuan Hukum: Sebuah Pengantar, Liberty, Yogyakarta.
Soerjono Soekanto & Sri Mamudji, 2005, Penelitian Hukum Normatif (Suatu Tinjauan Singkat), Rajawali Pers, Jakarta.
Sri Sumawarni, 2012, sebuah Sebuah Seri Metode Penelitian Hukum, UPT UNDIP Press, Semarang.
Syaiful Bakhri, 2009, Hukum Pembuktian Dalam Praktik Peradilan Pidana, Totalmedia, Sidoarjo.
Wirjono Prodjodikoro, 1974, Hukum Acara Pidana di Indonesia, Penerbit Sumur, Bandung.
Regulation:
Criminal Code
Criminal Procedure Code
Law Number 11 of 2021 concerning Amendments to Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia
Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power
Law Number 1 of 2024 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions
Regulation of the Head of the Republic of Indonesia National Police Number 10 of 2009 concerning Procedures and Requirements for Requests for Criminalistic Technical Examination of Crime Scenes and Criminalistic Laboratory Examination of Evidence to the Forensic Laboratory of the Republic of Indonesia National Police.
Etc:
Decision of the South Jakarta District Court, criminal, No. 796/Pid.B/2022/PN Jkt.Sel, Ferdy Sambo, February 19, 2023 jo. Decision of the DKI Jakarta High Court No. 54/PID/2023/PT DKI, Ferdy Sambo, April 12, 2023 jo. Decision of the Supreme Court No. 813K/PID/2023, Ferdy Sambo, August 8, 2023.
Decision of the East Jakarta District Court, criminal case, No. 229/Pid/Sus/2014/PN.Jkt.Tim, Ziman alias Oten, July 23, 2014 in conjunction with Decision of the DKI Jakarta High Court, criminal case, No. 242/Pid/2014/PT.DKI, Ziman alias Oten, October 13, 2014
Decision of the Denpasar District Court, criminal, No. 864/Pid.B/2015/PN.Dps, Agustay Handa May, 29 February 2016 jo. Decision of the Denpasar High Court, criminal, No. 13/Pid/2016/PT.Dps, Agustay Handa May, 28 April 2016.
Decision of the Denpasar District Court, criminal, No. 863/Pid.B/2015/PN.Dps, Margriet Christina Megawe alias Tely, February 29, 2016, in conjunction with Decision of the Denpasar High Court, criminal, No. 12/Pid/2016/PT.Dps, Margriet Chritina Megawe alias Tely, May 9, 2016.
Decision of the South Jakarta District Court, criminal, No. 1236/Pid.Sus/2014/PN.Jkt.Sel, Neil Bantleman alias Mr. B, April 2, 2015, jo. Decision of the DKI Jakarta High Court, criminal, No. 125/Pid/2015/PT.DKI, Neil Bantleman alias Mr.B, August 10, 2015, jo. Decision of the Supreme Court, criminal, No. 2658 K/Pid.Sus/2015, Neil Bantleman alias Mr. B, February 24, 2016, jo. Decision of the Supreme Court, criminal, No. 115 PK/Pid.Sus/2017, Neil Bantleman alias Mr.B, August 14, 2017.
https://milikkenyataan.blogspot.co.id/201304/asal-usuldan-cara-kerja-alat.html
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30659/rlj.4.4.%25p
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Ratio Legis Journal has been indexed in:
