Law Enforcement of Violent Theft in Indonesia: Analysis of Decision 201/Pid.B/2024/PN Ktg

Dino Dwi Aristo; Yoyok Ucuk Suyono; Dudik Djaja Sidarta; subekti Subekti; Hartoyo Hartoyo

doi:10.55227/ijhess.v6i1.2317

Authors

Dino Dwi Aristo Dr. Soetomo University Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia
Yoyok Ucuk Suyono Dr. Soetomo University, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia
Dudik Djaja Sidarta Dr. Soetomo University, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia
subekti Subekti Dr. Soetomo University, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia
Hartoyo Hartoyo Dr. Soetomo University, Surabaya, East Java, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55227/ijhess.v6i1.2317

Keywords:

robbery, article 365 criminal code, judicial reasoning, criminal liability, sentencing proportionality

Abstract

Robbery constitutes a serious criminal offense in the Indonesian criminal justice system because it combines the unlawful appropriation of property with the use or threat of violence against victims. Although Article 365 of the Indonesian Criminal Code provides a legal framework for regulating violent theft, judicial practice often encounters interpretative challenges regarding the elements of violence, aggravating circumstances, and sentencing proportionality. This study aims to analyze the legal construction of robbery under Article 365 of the Criminal Code, examine the judicial reasoning (ratio decidendi) in Decision Number 201/Pid.B/2024/PN Ktg, and evaluate the decision’s consistency with the principles of criminal liability, proportional punishment, and legal certainty. The research employs a qualitative normative legal method using statutory, case-based, conceptual, and analytical approaches by examining primary legal materials such as the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the relevant court decision, supported by secondary and tertiary legal sources. The findings indicate that the court systematically assessed the relationship between factual evidence and statutory elements of the offense and confirmed the fulfillment of both actus reus and mens rea in establishing criminal liability. The judgment also reflects the application of the proportionality principle in sentencing. However, interpretative discretion regarding violence and aggravating circumstances may lead to inconsistencies in judicial decisions. Therefore, this study recommends strengthening judicial interpretation guidelines and developing an integrated judgment database to enhance doctrinal consistency, legal certainty, and transparency in criminal law enforcement in Indonesia.

References

Alexy, R. (2022). The Radbruch Formula and the Nature of Law. Law and Philosophy, 41(5), 563–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-021-09430-4

Ambos, K. (2018). The principle of legality in international criminal law. Criminal Law Forum, 29(1), 1–28.

Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2022). Just punishment and proportionality in modern sentencing theory. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 42(4), 987–1008. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqac021

Bassiouni, M. C. (2017). The history of the principle of legality in international criminal law. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 15(3), 525–544.

Bouchard, M., & Morselli, C. (2021). Violence and property crime: Trends and implications for criminal justice policy. Crime and Justice, 50(1), 241–279. https://doi.org/10.1086/715784

Cryer, R., Friman, H., Robinson, D., & Wilmshurst, E. (2019). The principle of legality in international criminal law practice. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 17(2), 249–270.

Duff, R. A. (2022). Criminal responsibility and the limits of criminal law. New Criminal Law Review, 25(2), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2022.25.2.123

Dyzenhaus, D. (2023). The Enduring Legacy of Gustav Radbruch: Law, Injustice, and Constitutionalism. Modern Law Review, 86(2), 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12731

Farida, Brumadyadisty, G., Prakoso, R. A., Suhesti, N., & Putro, H. E. (2025). Sex Workers Still Human? Reading Dehumanization in Photo-Journalism. International Journal Of Humanities Education And Social Sciences (IJHESS), 4(6), 2860–2874.

Fletcher, G. P. (2020). Legality and the foundations of criminal liability. New Criminal Law Review, 23(2), 151–170.

Flora, H. S., Hoai Thuong, M. T., & Sirait, R. D. (2023). The orientation and implications of the legalization of the Draft Criminal Code to become Law No. 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code. Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum Dan Keadilan.

Frase, R. S. (2023). Sentencing principles in modern criminal justice systems. Crime and Justice, 52(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1086/722983

Gallant, K. S. (2021). The principle of legality in international and comparative criminal law. International Criminal Law Review, 21(3), 403–421.

Habernal, I., Faber, D., Recchia, N., Bretthauer, S., Gurevych, I., Spiecker genannt Döhmann, I., & Burchard, C. (2022). Mining legal arguments in court decisions. arXiv.

Harianto, E., Avianto, T., Mas’ud, R., & Krisprimandoyo, D. A. (2022). INNOVATING PV WATER PUMP BUSINESS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY INDUSTRY IN INDONESIA USING BLUE OCEAN. 2022(3), 1665–1676.

Holzenberger, N., & Van Durme, B. (2021). Factoring statutory reasoning as language understanding challenges. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.

Husak, D. (2021). The nature of criminal responsibility and the role of culpability. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 15(3), 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-020-09562-6

Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2022). Defining and Describing What We Do: Doctrinal Legal Research. Deakin Law Review, 27(1), 83–119. https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2022vol27no1art1246

Manggala, N. K. E. (2023). Robbery as a criminal offense under Article 365 of the Criminal Code. PJLEL.

Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (2023). Deterrence and criminal justice policy in the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Criminology, 6, 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030920-112404

Pavlakos, G. (2021). Law, Morality and the Limits of Legal Positivism: Revisiting the Radbruch Formula. Jurisprudence, 12(3), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/20403313.2021.1933127

Prasetyo, D. Y., & Faridah, H. (2024). Implementasi Pasal 365 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana tentang pencurian kekerasan. Jurnal Ilmiah Wahana Pendidikan, 10(1), 224–230.

Rais, A. (2023). Law enforcement and criminal responsibility in theft cases under Indonesian criminal law. Journal Analytica Islamica.

Setiawan, D. (2024). Prinsip proporsionalitas dalam penerapan hukuman pidana di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Multidisiplin dan Hukum.

Simester, A. P., & von Hirsch, A. (2021). Crimes, harms and wrongs: On the principles of criminalisation. Modern Law Review, 84(5), 1071–1092. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12633

Smits, J. M. (2021). What is legal doctrine? On the aims and methods of legal doctrinal research. Cambridge Law Journal, 80(2), 316–341.

Sufa, S. A., Sumartias, S., Zubair, F., & Perbawasari, S. (2025). Dynamics of Public Communication of the Surabaya City Government in Tackling Online Prostitution. 24(01), 2604–2620.

Sun, Z., Zhang, K., Yu, W., Wang, H., & Xu, J. (2024). Logic rules as explanations for legal case retrieval. Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval.

Suyanto. (2023). Metode penelitian hukum. Tahta Media.

Tadros, V. (2023). Responsibility and punishment in criminal law theory. Law and Philosophy, 42(4), 415–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-022-09442-9

Theodora, A. (2023). Asas-asas hukum pidana dalam KUHP baru. Hukumonline.

Tonry, M. (2021). Evidence-based sentencing and the future of punishment policy. Crime and Justice, 50(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1086/715785

Widiarty, W. S. (2024). Buku ajar metode penelitian hukum. Universitas Kristen Indonesia Press.

Wiraguna, S. A. (2024). Metode normatif dan empiris dalam penelitian hukum. Jurnal Penerbit Widina.

Zhang, K., Yang, H., Tang, X., Yu, W., & Xu, J. (2024). Beyond guilt: Legal judgment prediction with trichotomous reasoning. arXiv.