Guidelines for Criminalization based on Analysis of Disparities ...

Knowledge Management: Guidelines for Criminalization based onAnalysis of Disparities in the Results of Corruption Criminal Decisions

Hary Budiarto1 and Miswanto2

1Institute Bussiness and Technology (BRI Institute), Jakarta, Indonesia2Magister Computer Science, STMIK Nusa Mandiri, Jakarta, Indonesia

Keywords: Corruption cases, Knowledge Management, Information System Application, Punishment result.

Abstract: The disparity in punishment results of the corruption criminal decision has become a hot topic among aca-demics, observers and law practitioners in Indonesia. Many people think that the disparities in punishmentresults of corruption criminal will be contradiction to the efforts of eradicate corruption which is currently be-ing carried out by the Government. In particular, the disparity in the conviction of the results of this decisionis often discussed in a more specific context and is considered reasonable because the difference in decisionsbetween one, two or more cases that have the same characteristics is the domain of Judge discretion. Theconcept of criminal disparity nowadays doesn’t have a main guideline that can be used as a joint guidelinein determining whether disparity in criminality is in accordance with or not with the Circular of the AttorneyGeneral Number 3 of 2010 concerning Guidelines for Criminal Lawsuits in Corruption. In practice, there arestill many disparities that occur in the results of corruption convictions throughout Indonesia in the range of2011-2015. To make it easier for Judges to determine a decision by considering the Attorney General Number3 of 2010 approach and also the results of a conviction for corruption which has been legal force within therange of 2011-2015 requires a kind of Knowledge Management Application on the Disparity Study of Corrup-tion Criminal Decision Results. Besides making it easier to classify according to the level of State Losses andState Losses Return, this Knowledge Management in the future can be used as a Supporting Guide for Judgesand Prosecutors to be able to see the results of decisions in previous years.

1 INTRODUCTION

Efforts to eradicate corruption in Indonesia have be-come less than optimal with the disparity in criminalconviction in the case of corruption, it should be byimplementing guidelines for criminal prosecution ofcorruption such as the Circular of the Attorney Gen-eral Number: 003 of 2010, can be more effective inminimizing the occurrence of disparities in prosecu-tors conveying large demands and judges can providedecisions for criminal sanctions cases of corruption.However, this has not been realized until now becausethere are still many criminal disparities in corruptioncases (Anugerah Rizki Akbari, 2018).

Verdict of Corruption cases through a court deci-sion, should be able to minimize disparity in criminalsanctions and not ease criminal sanctions for corrup-tors. This is due to the existing criminal code guide-lines, which have not been able to reduce the subjec-tivity of judges in deciding cases of corruption and thepotential for judges to make judicial discretion in the

form of disparity in crimes which cannot be justified.So we need a Knowledge Management as a guidelinefor criminal law enforcement in Indonesia for Judgeand Prosecutor.

Corruption criminal is an extraordinary crime, be-cause it not only damages the economy but also vi-olates the human rights inherent in each individual.To eradicate Corruption is countered by extra ordi-nary acts (Rukmini, 2006), the disparity of Corrup-tion Court decisions that cannot be accounted wellcan cause public distrust in the law enforcement ofCorruption and cause inconsistencies in the judicialenvironment.

At present to overcome the disparity in prosecu-tion of corruption cases, there are Guidelines for Pros-ecution related to Corruption, which must be usedas a reference by the Public Prosecutor in determin-ing criminal charges against perpetrators of corrup-tion. These guidelines are listed in the Attorney Gen-eral’s Circular Letter Number: 003 of 2010. In theguidelines of the circular letter is given a guide to

278Budiarto, H. and Miswanto, .Knowledge Management: Guidelines for Criminalization based on Analysis of Disparities in the Results of Corruption Criminal Decisions.DOI: 10.5220/0009909102780285In Proceedings of the International Conferences on Information System and Technology (CONRIST 2019), pages 278-285ISBN: 978-989-758-453-4Copyright c© 2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

make criminal charges against convicted corruptionwith clause 2 paragraph 1 and clause 3 which are thefocus of the crime of corruption.

Figure 1: General Description of Disparity

This research will develop a Knowledge Manage-ment System to resolve the problem of disparity theresults of lawsuits in corruption cases based on Deci-sion Results data for the period of 2011 to 2015. Thedata consists of 31 fields and 713 records of data oncorruption decisions that enter the realm of the Attor-ney General’s Office and also the Corruption Eradica-tion Commission (KPK) that has been legal force as adatabase of this Knowledge Management application.

Knowledge Management System is somethingthat must be built and developed in order to followthe development of technology and knowledge. TheKnowledge Management function will be able to as-sist the organization or institution in providing em-ployees with proper understanding and knowledge,both directly and indirectly. This Knowledge Man-agement (KM) can be generally useful as internal e-learning for employees and is particularly useful as asource of knowledge in organizations or institutions(Kusuma, 2013).

There are some researchers who have developedknowledge management such as java applications,mobile application and web services or e-learning ap-plication that aim as a tool to clarify or provide validinformation to be presented to end user. There isa research with entitled ”The Study of the Applica-tion of SECI-based Knowledge Management Systemin E-Mobile format: Case Study of Indraprasta Uni-versity PGRI” (Yudha, 2015). In this research, theconcept and design of an e-mobilebased KnowledgeManagement System was made as an alternative inhandling learning for students and lecturers who werejust teaching Java courses. In this system, the appli-

cation of e-mobile-based Knowledge Management isbuilt using the SECI Model approach.

And for Disparity and Law Decision for corrup-tion cases was already research by Indonesian Judi-cial Monitoring Society Research Team - Faculty ofLaw, University of Indonesia (Anugerah Rizki Ak-bari, 2018) , with a research entitled ”Resume ofCriminal Disparity Research in Corruption Cases”.This research provides information and some exam-ples of cases of criminal disparities that occur in therealm of the Attorney General’s Office of the Repub-lic of Indonesia. In their research also explained Dis-parities that could not be explained and also Dispari-ties that could be explained in accordance with normalapplicable law (Anugerah Rizki Akbari, 2018).

(Sijing, 2006) explains that ”Knowledge manage-ment is the process of acquiring and using knowl-edge and techniques in an organization”. (Tjakraat-madja and Lantu, 2006) explains that ”KnowledgeManagement can be explained as systematic steps tomanage knowledge in organizations to create valueand increase competitive advantage”. (Davenport andPrusak, 1998) state that generally a Knowledge Man-agement project has one of the following three objec-tives:

1. There is a basic knowledge and role of that knowl-edge to the organization, mostly through a form ofknowledge mapping.

2. Develop a knowledge-based culture by encourag-ing and supporting behaviour to share knowledge(Knowledge Sharing) and be proactive in seekingor providing new knowledge,

3. Building a knowledge infrastructure not only on atechnical system, but also a form of network thatconnects humans with the availability of space,time, tools, and a passion for interaction and col-laboration.

According to (Muladi and Arief, 1984), explain-ing that disparity in sentencing is a criminal applica-tion that is not the same against the same crime (sameoffence) or against a criminal offense whose natureof danger can be compared (offences of comparableseriousness) without basis clear justification. Judgesdecisions are an important aspect in the administra-tion of the justice system. On one side of the judge’sdecision determines the defendant’s fate, namely byproviding legal certainty regarding the status of thedefendant whether the defendant was found guilty ornot along with legal remedies that can be submitted bythe defendant, either through an appeal, verification,or cassation.

Knowledge Management: Guidelines for Criminalization based on Analysis of Disparities in the Results of Corruption Criminal Decisions

279

2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research uses a descriptive method by presentinga summary of the results of observations and analysisresults from the Corruption Court Judgment Data ofthe Republic of Indonesia and the Corruption Eradica-tion Commission of the Republic of Indonesia in therange of 2011-2015. A lawsuit in a corruption casethat is not in accordance with the Attorney General’sCircular Letter Number. 003 of 2010. Data collec-tion methods used in this study through several stepscarried out in several activities including:

1. Doing observations in order to obtain typologiesrelated to disparities in criminal acts of corruptionthat occurred in the range of 2011-2015.

2. Doing processing data on the results of decisionsfrom the Supreme Court decision directory.

3. Doing statistical conclusions from the results pro-cessed with Microsoft Excel.

4. And at the final stage of making conclusions in astatistical formative based on interviews that arenot directly to Survey Respondents.

5. Make conclusions about the research being car-ried out and provide suggestions and submit themfor the future.

Figure 2: Research Methodology (Yudha, 2015)

The study was conducted through several struc-tured stages with the aim of obtaining precise and ac-curate data through the activity steps outlined below.Stages of research is the development of the conceptof thinking that is used as a reference in finding solu-tions to problems found. The process description ofthe stages of the research carried out is as follows:

2.1 Formulation of the Problem

This step doing an analysis of the problem that oc-curs, namely the existence of disparity in the prose-

cution and the results of the criminal conviction forcorruption that occurred in the period of 2011-2015in the realm of the Attorney General of the Republicof Indonesia. Disparity in prosecution is the differ-ence between claims made by the Public Prosecutorand the existing Prosecution Guidelines, in this caseSEJA Guideline Number: 003 of 2010. These differ-ences are usually below the threshold that should befor the minimum demands. The disparity of the re-sults of convictions is the difference in the results ofcriminal decisions from those prosecuted by the Pub-lic Prosecutor and it usually occurs if the State is ata loss but the criminal decision is different betweendefendant 1 and the other defendants

2.2 Supporting Theory

This step is search for theoretical guidance that is af-ter the research problem is formulated, the next stepis to look for theoretical guidance that can be used asa theoretical basis for conducting research. The theo-ries include theories in criminal law, theories in datamining, software engineering theories and theories inthe development of knowledge management.

2.3 Collecting Data

This step is collecting decision directory data onSupreme Court and MAPPI websites to formulate thedecision disparity problem that will be formulated. Inaddition, observations, interviews and questionnaireswere also carried out. The interview technique wascarried out with a number of questions given to Sur-vey Respondents consisting of KPK Prosecutors andStaff regarding current conditions related to dispari-ties. This questionnaire technique is given to the pop-ulation that is sampled in the form of questions withanswers to two alternative choices. Observation tech-nique by conducting discussions directly or indirectlywith prosecutors and KPK employees who are expertsin the field of Justice and Law to see each decisionresult until the other court proceedings until the deci-sion becomes have legal force.

2.4 Data Analysis

This step to conduct data analysis that illustrates thecurrent conditions of prosecution disparity and deci-sion disparity results using the classification data min-ing method in the form of a decision tree. Based onthe data that is processed and collected from the tech-nique, it will produce a description of the typology ofthe conditions that exist at this time related to the exis-tence of the disparity in the decision and not making

CONRIST 2019 - International Conferences on Information System and Technology

280

demands in accordance with SEJA Guideline Num-ber:003 of 2010.

2.5 Implementation KnowledgeManagement System

This step is doing development of data to find andanalysis gaps that occur then identify. Developing ap-plications into Object Oriented Programming (OOP)based programs in the form of Knowledge Manage-ment Applications for Corruption Criminal Cases thatcan serve as a supporting tool in making decisionsfor Law Enforcement Officials in corruption criminalcases based on the disparity in the prosecution andconviction for criminal cases of corruption.

3 RESULT AND ANALYSIS

3.1 Data Process

Based on the decision data in the Decision Directoryso far, it can be accessed together about CorruptionCrimes as many as 3,931 decisions. Where each is di-vided into several criteria for corruption cases handledby the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia,and also the Corruption Eradication Commission withthe following details:

Figure 3: Corruption Category.

Based on Figure 3, we can be seen that for 1 cate-gory of corruption the most is corruption which refersto Law No.31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law No.20of 2001. For the other 6 categories it is adjusted toCriminal Article which is more specific and clearlyclause. For more clear, the following is an appearanceof the Supreme Court Verdict Directory website:

space

Figure 4: Verdict Directory of Supreme Court(https://putusan.mahkamahagung.go.id/)

From the sample data obtained by MaPPI, thenthe data is re-processed and built into a database ofcorruption criminal application consisting of 31 fieldsand 713 data records. The database was built usingMySQL Server which can later be used for applica-tion development in the Corruption Criminal Knowl-edge Management System. The application was madeto adjust with SEJA Number: 003 of 2010 to calculatethe interval of claims that should have been made bythe Public Prosecutor and also to be analysis. The fol-lowing information is 31 fields that are used as a KMdatabase:


281

space

Figure 5: Database Field.

In addition to the emergence for issues of criminal

sentences that are higher than charges, the problemthat always arises every year in the trend of criminalconvictions is the amount of disparity in decisions.Disparity in decisions is a serious problem becauseit involves the value of justice to be achieved from aconviction. With the emergence of criminal disparity,it implies that there is injustice in the decisions of thejudges handed down to the defendant. Although dis-parity is not possible to be eliminated, gaps that arisefrom punishment can be reduced or minimized.

Processing results in this study found that therewere disparities in criminal prosecution that were stillunder 18 months. For this category, a minimum of 3month demands for corruption in Clause 3, following3 typologies of disparity in the demands for Clause 3,

1. Disparity demand for 12 months,

2. Disparity demand for 14 and

3. Disparity demand for 15 months still occur in thedemand from prosecutor to the defendant. Theinformation can be show in Figure 4 until Figure6 below :

Figure 6: Disparity demand for 12 month

For Figure 6 we can see, there is so many provincethat has demands below 18 month. 18 month isthe minimum or the lowest demands based on At-torney General’s Circular Number: 003 of 2010


For Figure 7 just 3 province which still has de-mand below 18 month.


282

space


Then for Figure 8 there is so many the provincestill has demand below 18 months and refer toAttorney General’s Circular Letter Number. 003of 2010 is not suitable. And for the detail aboutsuitable or not suitable on Clause 3 we can seein attachment. Then after processing data for thisstudy, we can build Knowledge Management Ap-plication for this case. Here’s the example dispar-ity in the demands and the verdict of corruptioncases :

Figure 9: Example Disparity Punishment.

From Figure 9, there’s differences in demandsfrom prosecutor demand, but the Judge have theirdiscretion to punish 4 of them with 1 year pun-ishment. As we can see, it can build image in thesociety can be injustice because the case with cor-ruption 19 billion rupiah and corruption 14 mil-lion rupiah had the same verdict punishment.

3.2 Application Design

The Design of Knowledge Management Applicationfor Corruption Criminal Guidance is made based onthe collection of data and information carried outto follow adjustments to the existing Attorney Gen-eral Guideline Number: 003 of 2010 by incorporat-ing 2 main components namely Country Losses andCountry Losses Returns. This application consists of6 Forms namely Main Menu Form, Form ComputeDemand, KM Analysis Form, Compare Data Form,Graphic Form and finally Data Input Form.

The following menu structure in the KM applica-tion as follows:

space

Figure 10: Application Structure

Based on Figure 8, application menu structureconsists of 6 Main Forms that were built to help pro-cess data on the verdict results of corruption decisionsthat have a function as learning data from corruptioncases in the period 2011 to 2015 for Clause 2 andClause 3 only. With this Knowledge ManagementSystems it hoped that it can be a tool before determin-ing criminal charges for corruption cases. Followingis an explanation of each menu in the application:

1. Main MenuFor the main menu contains 4 menu choicesnamely Program, Help, About and SEJA Informa-tion. Programs for logging in and exiting appli-cations, Help for help information, About infor-mation about the makers of the KMS system andInformation SEJA as a Basic Guide for the devel-opment of the KMS Criminal Corruption applica-tion.

2. Calculate DemandTo count demands, it contains 6 buttons, namelyCompute Demand, Clear, Update Data, KM Anal-ysis, Show Data and Exit Program. Compute De-mands to calculate the interval of demands thatshould be made based on Country Losses andCountry Losses Returns. Clear to do the recal-culation, Data Update to do an automatic classifi-cation of the status of the suit whether it is in suit-able with SEJA or not. KM Analysis to conductfurther analysis of the data, display data to displaydata from the database. And finally the button toexit the KMS Criminal Punishment application.

3. Analysis of KMFor KM analysis contains 6 buttons namely Tabu-lation, Data Input, Graphics, Back, Compare Dataand Exit Program. Tabulation to display the fil-tered data based on Country Losses and Returns,Input Data to process the new data input into thedatabase. Graphic to display data in a chart, Re-turn to return to the Calculate Demands menu.Compare Data to analysis 2 different data, andExit Program to end the use of the program.


283

4. Compare DataCompare Data contains 2 buttons to Commentand Return. Give comments to comment on thecomparison of 2 different data to be stored in thedatabase. Return to return to the KM Analysismenu.

5. GraphicsFor graphics containing 2 buttons namely ShowData and Return, display data to view data in avisualization chart and return to return to the KMApplication menu.

6. Data InputFor Data Input contains 3 buttons, namely Save,Clear and Back. Save to save data to the database,Clear to do new input from reload data and returnto return to the KM Analysis menu.

3.3 Graphic User Interface ofApplication

The following are the results of the application ofthe Knowledge Management Criminal System whichconsists of 6 Forms as follows :

1. Main Menu Form

Figure 11: Main Menu Form

For Main Menu use as login Form to login to theapplication, after login we can use according tothe needs.

2. Calculate Demand Form

Figure 12: Calculate Demand Form

For Calculate demand form, we can check forClause 2 or Clause 3 the best interval for pun-ishment result for the Judge or Prosecutor cantake based on General Attorney Guideline Num-ber: 003 of 2010.

3. Analysis of KM Form

Figure 13: Analysis of KM Form

For Analysis Form we can use compare 1 punish-ment result with other result and make commentif there is disparity in that result.

4. Compare Data Form

Figure 14: Compare Data Form

For Compare Data form we can check each detailfor the case of corruption held in the range of 2011until 2015.

5. Graphics Form

Figure 15: Graphics Form

For Graphics Form we can see the difference be-tween Clause 2 and Clause 3 for the case of cor-ruption based on State Loses.

6. Data Input Form

Figure 16: Data Input Form

For Data Input Form, we can input new cases ofcorruption to become one of our databases and


284

can be processed in the Knowledge ManagementApplication. So if there is new case we can inputto the application and can add into database.

4 CONCLUSIONS

The present work contributes to the corruption casedata of Clause 2 and Clause 3 and wellestablishedknowledge management models are able to handle thenew challenges to help Judge and Prosecutor to viewcriminal case especially in corruption case. With thisapplication maybe will help Judge and Prosecutor tofind the best demands to punish the corruption defen-dant based on guidelines.

Future works might build upon the Supreme Courtand propose models that integrate with PunishmentDirectory in every area of Justice of Indonesia At-torney. And build an application based on websiteor mobile application which can be accessed anytimeand anywhere for Judge or Prosecutor for their learn-ing and working.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks for all my friend in STMIK Nusa MandiriJakarta who always support me and always take careof me. Thanks for Corruption Eradication Commis-sion for using this tools as supporting tool for prose-cutor in there.

REFERENCES

Anugerah Rizki Akbari, Adery Ardhan Saputro, A. N. M.(2018). Memaknai dan mengukur disparitas: Studiterhadap praktik pemidanaan pada tindak pidana ko-rupsi.

Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowl-edge: Managing what your organization knows. Har-vard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 210.

Kusuma, F. S. D. (2013). Analisa pengaruh knowl-edge management terhadap keunggulan bersaing dankinerja perusahaan. Business accounting review,1(2):161–171.

Muladi and Arief, B. N. (1984). Teori-teori dan kebijakanpidana. Alumni.

Rukmini, M. (2006). Aspek hukum pidana dan kriminologi:sebuah bunga rampai. Alumni.

Sijing, L. (2006). Analysis and design of knowledge man-agement system. Asian Federation for InformationTechnology in Agriculture, pages 172–178.

Tjakraatmadja, J. and Lantu, D. (2006). Knowledge man-agement in learning organization context.

Yudha, B. (2015). Kajian penerapan knowledge manage-ment system berbasis seci model dalam format e-mobile: Studi kasus universitas indraprasta pgri. Fak-tor Exacta, 8(3):279–289.


285

Guidelines for Criminalization based on Analysis of Disparities ...

Documents

Transcript of Guidelines for Criminalization based on Analysis of Disparities ...