Abstract

This article aims to analyze the concept of inclusion in the formulation of Article 55 of the Criminal Code and analyze the application of the concept of inclusion in the judge's decision to the case of the crime of theft. This research is a type of normative legal research, using a conceptual approach, a statute approach, and a case approach. The results of the research from this article include: The perpetrator in the sense of dader, is a person whose single act has manifested a crime, is referred to as the sole perpetrator (allen dader), or with the words whoever (hij die) in each formulation of a crime . Meanwhile, the perpetrator in the formulation of Article 55 of the Criminal Code is an actor who in committing a criminal act is not personally, but together with other people in realizing a criminal act and each has a different role, the role can be in the form of a person who ordered to do it (doen plegen), participate in doing (made plegen), and move or recommend (uitlokken). The judge's decision regarding participation (deelneming) in the crime of theft, the judge still has not described clearly and unequivocally the patterns of action relations between the defendant and other actors so that the actions that have been carried out create an inclusion (deelneming). In a court decision related to deelneming, if the criminal act of theft that has been initiated by the defendant does not get results (mislukte uitlokking), with a failure at the time of the implementation of the criminal act of theft by material actors in uitlokking, the judge should consider Article 163 bis of the Criminal Code which has been Officially by staatbland 1925 Number 197 WvS Nederland Indie which regulates criminal acts that occur because they have been moved (uitlokking) not to realize a criminal act or the state of mislukte uitlokking submission without results.

Concepts :

Access to Document

SDGs

Citations by Year