Model Komunikasi Pemeriksaan Dalam Sidang Agenda Pembuktian Perkara di Pengadilan
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
An examination of the case is conducted to reveal evidence and information that the defendant is considered to have committed a criminal offense that caused the victim to loss, and that the victim is the party who was harmed by the defendant. Case examination through communication activities in the case examination agenda session as examination communication. This article aims to find a model of examination communication in the agenda of proving a case in court. The concept in this research is Examination Communication and Communication Ethnography. The research method used is descriptive qualitative research. Researchers interviewed 15 informants, observed 3 criminal cases, and documented the research. The results of this study indicate that the audit communication activities at the Court take place in the courtroom. The case evidence agenda forms three models of examination communication based on communication participants, namely (1) the law enforcement communication model with the defendant, namely the communication activities of judges, prosecutors, and legal advisers with the defendant (2) law enforcer communication model with victims, namely communication activities of judges , legal advisers, public prosecutors with victims (3) the model of communication between law enforcers and witnesses, namely the communication activities of judges, legal advisers, prosecutors with defendants. In practice, communication activities for the examination of defendants, victims and witnesses can be carried out simultaneously, which is called the cross examination communication model. The cross-examination communication model is carried out to verify and confirm evidence, the information provided by the accused, witnesses and victims simultaneously.
Pemeriksaan perkara dilakukan untuk mengungkap bukti dan informasi bahwa terdakwadianggap melakukan tindak pidana yang merugikan korban, dan bahwa korban adalah pihak yang dirugikan oleh terdakwa. Pemeriksaan perkara melalui kegiatan komunikasi dalam sidang agenda pemeriksaan perkara sebagai komunikasi pemeriksaan. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk menemukan model komunikasi pemeriksaan dalam agenda pembuktian perkara di Pengadilan. Konsep dalam penelitian ini adalah Komunikasi Pemeriksaan dan Etnografi Komunikasi. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian deskriptif kualitatif. Peneliti mewawancarai 15 informan, mengamati 3 kasus pidana, dan mendokumentasikan penelitian tersebut. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa kegiatan komunikasi pemeriksaan di pengadilan berlangsung di ruang sidang persidangan. Agenda pembuktian perkara membentuk tiga model komunikasi pemeriksaan berdasarkan peserta komunikasi, yaitu (1) model komunikasi penegak hukum dengan terdakwa, yaitu kegiatan komunikasi para hakim, jaksa, dan penasihat hukum dengan terdakwa (2) model komunikasi penegak hukum dengan korban, yakni kegiatan komunikasi hakim, penasihat hukum, penuntut umum dengan korban (3) model komunikasi antara penegak hukum dan saksi yakni kegiatan komunikasi hakim, penasihat hukum, jaksa, dengan terdakwa. Dalam praktiknya, kegiatan komunikasi pemeriksaan terdakwa, korban, dan saksi dapat dilakukan secara bersamaan, yang disebut model komunikasi pemeriksaan silang. Model komunikasi pemeriksaan silang dilakukan untuk memverifikasi dan mengkonfirmasi bukti, informasi yang diberikan oleh terdakwa, saksi dan korban secara bersamaan.
Article Details
References
Aceron, R. M. (2015). Conversational Analysis : The Judge and Lawyers ’ Courtroom Interaction s. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(5), 120–127.
Archer, D. (2011). Cross-examining lawyers, facework and the adversarial courtroom. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3216–3230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.007
Aronsson, K., Jönsson, L., & Linell, P. (1987). The courtroom hearing as a middle ground: Speech accommodation by lawyers and defendants. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6(2), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X8700600202
Bednarek, G. A. (2014). Polish vs. American Courtroom Discourse Inquisitorial and Adversarial Procedures of Witness Examination in Criminal Trials (1st ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Brewer, N., Vagadia, A. N., Hope, L., & Gabbert, F. (2018). Interviewing witnesses: Eliciting coarse-grain information. Law and Human Behavior, 4(5), 458–471. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000294
Chen, J.-M. (2015). A Multimodal Study on Lawyer’s Courtroom Communication Management. International Conference on Management Science and Management Innovation (MSMI 2015), Msmi, 267–271. https://doi.org/10.2991/msmi-15.2015.49
Cowles, K. M., & Cowles, K. M. (2011). Communication in the Courtroom. Honors College and Center for Interdisciplinary Studies.
Creswell, J. W. (2010). Research design pendekatan kualitatif, kuantitatif, dan mixed. Pustaka Pelajar.
F?RCA?IU, M. (2013). The Ethnography of the Courtroom in American and Romanian Criminal Justice Systems. International Journal of Education and Research, 1(4), 1–8.
Farley, E. J., Jensen, E., & Rempel, M. (2014). Improving Courtroom Communication: A Procedural Justice Experiment in Milwaukee.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/AbstractDB/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=266579
Field., L. L. F. the. (2018). Investigating Violent Crime : The Prosecutor ’ s Role Lessons Learned From the Field. Https://Crimegunintelcenters.Org, June. https://crimegunintelcenters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Investigating-Violent-Crime-The-Prosecutors-Role-Lessons-Learned-from-the-Field-NRTAC-June-2018.pdf
Fuady, M. (2020). TEORI HUKUM PEMBUKTIAN PIDANA DAN PERDATA (Cetakan Ke). PT CITRA ADITYA BAKTI.
Gabbert, F., Hope, L., Carter, E., & Fisher, R. (2015). ( 2015 ) Communicating with Witnesses : The role of initial accounts during investigative interviews. 271528351(August).
Gehl, R., & Plecas, D. (2016). Introduction to Criminal Investigation : Processes , Practices and Thinking. 84–101. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/criminalinvestigation/chapter/chapter-7-witness-management/
Groome, D., & Eysenck, M. (2016). An Introduction to Applied Cognitive Psychology (New York (ed.); 2nd ed.). Routledge. https://books.google.co.id/books/about/An_Introduction_to_Applied_Cognitive_Psy.html?id=cTL7CwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
Hadiprashada, D., Hadiprashada, D., Budiman, D. A., Bengkulu, U., Limun, K., & Bengkulu, K. (2019). Komunikasi Lingkungan dalam Budaya Masyarakat ( Analisis Model Pesan Two Way Asymmetrical pada Lembaga Adat ). 213–222.
Haryono, A. (2015). Etnografi Komunikasi: Konsep, Metode, dan Contoh Penelitian Pola Komunikasi. UPT Penerbitan UNEJ.
Hiariej, E. O. (2012). Teori dan Hukum Pembuktian. Erlangga.
Kebudayaan, K. P. dan. (2020). Persidangan. Https://Kbbi.Kemdikbud.Go.Id. https://kbbi.kemdikbud.go.id/entri/persidangan
Kristofer, I., & Susanto, E. H. (2019). Pola Komunikasi Dalam Upacara Adat Teapai di Lingkup Etnis Tionghoa Jakarta. Koneksi, 2(2), 387–392.
Kuswarno, E. (2011). Etnografi Komunikasi (Cetakan 2). Widya Padjadjaran.
Littlejohn, S., & Foss, K. A. (2009). Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412959384
Matoesian, G. (2017). Communication in investigative and legal contexts: integrated approaches from forensic psychology, linguistics and law enforcement, edited by Gavin Oxburgh, Trond Myklebust, Tim Grant and Rebecca Milne. Police Practice and Research, 21(1), 95–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2017.1283901
Morrison, J., Forrester-Jones, R., Bradshaw, J., & Murphy, G. (2019). Communication and cross-examination in court for children and adults with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 23(4), 366–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712719851134
Mulyana, D. (2017). METODE PENELITIAN KUALITATTIF : Paradigma Baru Ilmu Komunikasi dan Ilmu Sosial Lainnya. PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Network, S. L. (2008). Self-Represented Litigation Network Effectiveness of Courtroom Communication in Hearings Involving Two Self-Represented Litigants An Exploratory Study. English.
R, Y. P. (2016). PUTUSAN HAKIM PADA PERKARA PIDANA: Kajian Psikologis. Buletin Psikologi, 3(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.22146/bpsi.13377
Roberts, A. (2011). Identification : Investigation , Trial and Scientific Evidence Paul Bogan , QC , and Andrew Roberts Book review by Sally Ramage , editor , The Criminal Lawyer. 2–3. http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/Identification-book review-jordans 2011.pdf
Samosir, C. D. (2013). Segenggam tentang Hukum Acara Pidana. Nuansa Aulia.
Setyo, B. T. (2013). ??No Title No Title. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689–1699. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Widodo, A. (2019). Model Komunikasi Penegak Hukum dalam Ruang Persidangan di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat. Jurnal Penelitian Komunikasi, 22(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.20422/jpk.v22i2.660
Widodo, A., Hidayat, D. R., Venus, A., & Suseno, S. (2019). The pattern of interruption in Indonesia court room. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(2 Special Issue), 506–512.
Widodo, A., Rahmat Hidayat, D., Venus, A., & Suseno, S. (2018). The Pattern of Communication Legal Advisor with Defendant In Indonesian Courtroom. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(3.30), 405. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.30.18343