The Formation of Judicial Conviction in Indonesia: Convergence of Legal Norms and Empirical Reasoning in Criminal Proof
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25139/lex.v10i1.11429Keywords:
Judicial Conviction, Criminal Evidence, Judicial Reasoning, Beyond a Reasonable DoubtAbstract
The Indonesian criminal procedure system adheres to the negatief wettelijk bewijstheorie, requiring judges to base convictions on at least two lawful pieces of evidence supported by judicial conviction. While formal legal norms set minimum evidentiary requirements, empirical judicial practices reveal that judges also consider non-formal factors in shaping their convictions. Current legal doctrines lack clarity on how such non-legal factors influence the formation of judicial conviction, and how this aligns with the principle of legality. This study investigates the convergence between normative evidentiary standards and empirical judicial reasoning in the formation of judicial conviction, including comparative insights with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in common law. Empirical research involving 50 Indonesian judges shows that sentence is often shaped not only by formal evidence but also by defendant behavior, witness demeanor, background narratives, and academic literature. Although such considerations support material truth-seeking, they introduce risks of subjectivity without clear safeguards. This study integrates doctrinal, empirical, and comparative analyses to reveal the multi-layered process of judicial conviction formation in Indonesia. It proposes a conceptual framework that bridges legal rules with empirical practices. The findings call for the development of judicial guidelines, enhanced forensic psychology training for judges, and partial reform of the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP) to ensure proportional certainty without undermining legal formalism.
References
BOOK
Ali, A., Menguak Tabir Hukum (Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia, 2011).
Bell, W. R., Practical Criminal Investigations in Correctional Facilites (Boca Raton-New York: CRC Press, 2002).
Harahap, M. Y., Pembahasan Permasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP Pemeriksaan Sidang Pengadilan, Banding, Kasasi, dan Peninjauan Kembali Edisi Kedua (Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2019).
Hastie, R., Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making (Cambridge: University Press, 1993).
Hiariej, E. O. S., Teori & Hukum Pembuktian (Jakarta: Erlangga, 2012).
Mulyadi, L., Pembalikan Beban Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Bandung: Alumni, 2007).
Santoso, T. and E. A. Zulfa, Kriminologi (Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2009).
Sasangka, H., Hukum Pembuktian dalam Acara Pidana (Bandung: Mandar Maju, 2003).
Takariawan, A., Hukum Pembuktian (Bandung: Pustaka Reka Cipta, 2021).
Thaman, S. C. (ed.), Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law Vol. 20 (New York: Springer Science and Business Media, 2012).
Wilde, B. D., Bewijsminimumregels als Waarborgen voor de Waarheidsvinding in Strafzaken? in De waarde van waarheid. Opstellen over waarheid en waarheidsvinding in het strafrecht (Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers, 2008).
JOURNAL
Akbar, T. N. and Hendra, “Penerapan Asas In Dubio Pro Reo Pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Dalam Perkara Pidana” (2021) 10:1 Repertorium 86-98.
Cardidi, J., “Kajian Hermeneutis Terhadap Makna Keyakinan Hakim dan Peranannya untuk Putusan (Vonis) Pidana” (2014) 1:2 E-Journal Graduate Unpar 14-30.
Dilaga, A. P., “Pengaruh Keterangan Ahli terhadap Keyakinan Hakim dalam Putusan Tindak Pidana Korupsi” (2013) 8:1 Pandecta Research Law Journal 106-116.
Eberle, E. J., “The Method and Role of Comparative Law” (2009) 8:3 Washington University Global Studies Law Review 451-511.
Essex, R. and J. Goodman-Delahunty, “Judicial Directions and The Criminal Standard of Proof: Improving Juror Comprehension” (2014) 24:2 Journal of Judicial Administration 75-94.
Gatti, U. and A. Verde, ”Cesare Lombroso: Methodological Ambiguities and Brilliant Intuitions” (2012) 35:1 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 19-26.
Gulo, N. and C. D. Z. Gulo, “Timbulnya Keyakinan Hakim dalam Hukum Pembuktian Perkara Pidana di Peradilan Indonesia” (2024) 6:3 UNES Law Review 8115-8122.
Handoko, R., “Tinjauan Yuridis Kasasi Terhadap Putusan Bebas dalam Sistem Pemidanaan di Indonesia” (2018) 15:2 Spektrum Hukum 208-235.
Hutchinson, T., “The Doctrinal Method: Incorporating Interdisciplinary Methods in Reforming the Law” (2015) 8:3 Erasmus Law Review 130-138.
Ilyas, A., “Praktik Penerapan Exclusionary Rules di Indonesia” (2021) 50:1 Masalah-Masalah Hukum 49-59.
Kagehiro, D. K. and W. C. Stanton, “Legal vs. Quantified Definitions of Standards of Proof” (1985) 9:2 Law and Human Behavior 159-178.
Laudan, L., “Is Reasonable Doubt Reasonable?” (2003) 9:4 Legal Theory 295-331.
Lokas, R., “Barang Bukti dan Alat Bukti Dalam Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Acara Pidana” (2015) 3:9 Lex et Societas 124-129.
Martin, A. W. and D. A. Schum, “Quantifying Burdens of Proof: a Likelihood Ratio Approach” (1987) 27:4 Jurimetrics Journal 383-402.
Mazzone, J., “The Justice and the Jury” (2006) 72:1 Brooklyn Law Review 35-59.
McCauliff, C.M.A., “Burdens of Proof: Degrees of Belief, Quanta of Evidence, or Constitutional Guarantees?” (1982) 35:6 Vanderbilt Law Review 1293-1335.
Nalle, V. I. W., “The Relevance of Socio-Legal Studies in Legal Science” (2015) 27:1 Mimbar Hukum 179-182.
Newman, J. O., “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” (1993) 68:5 New York University Law Review 979-1002.
Nugroho, B., “Peranan Alat Bukti dalam Perkara Pidana dalam Putusan Hakim Menurut KUHAP” (2017) 32:1 Yuridika, 17-36.
Pratiwi, M. D., “Analisis Terhadap Putusan Lepas dari Segala Tuntutan Hukum (Onslag Van Alle Rechtsvervolging) dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Pemalsuan Surat (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 120 K/Pid/2016)” (2021) 9:1 Verstek 193-202.
Putri, H. A., E. Soponyono, and Pujiyono, “Penggunaan Sistem Pembalikan Beban Pembuktian Dalam Praktik Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi” (2019) 8:4 Diponegoro Law Journal 2539-2545.
Shapiro, J. A. and K. T. Muth, “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Juries Don’t Get It” (2021) 52:4 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 1029-1044.
Stoffelmayr, E. and S. S. Diamond, “The Conflict between Precision and Flexibility in Explaining Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” (2000) 6:3 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 769-787.
Tajudin, I., R. H. Ramadhani, and A. A. Zahra, “Pembentukan Keyakinan Hakim Dalam Perkara Pidana di Lingkungan Peradilan Jawa Barat” (2020) 13:2 Arena Hukum 348-368.
Triantono and M. Marizal, “Parameter Keyakinan Hakim dalam Memutus Perkara Pidana” (2021) 37:2 Justitia et Pax 267-286.
Wijayanta, T. et al, “Penerapan Prinsip Hakim Pasif dan Aktif serta Relevansinya Terhadap Konsep Kebenaran Formal” (2010) 22:3 Mimbar Hukum 572-587.
WEBSITE
Martin, B. R., “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”, (2010), online: <https://supremecourt.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/727064/beyond-reasonable-doubt-supreme-and-federal-court-judges-conference.pdf>.
