Teori Hukum Pidana Minimalis dari Douglas Husak: Urgensi dan Relevansi

Main Article Content

Mahrus Ali M. Arif Setiawan

Abstract

Douglas Husak has been widely known, especially in the United States and Europe, as a leading theorist who combines the disciplines of legal philosophy and criminal law. Most of his writings were directed at the use of the coercive means of the state through criminal law as minimum as possible. The minimalist theory of criminal law that he coined was motivated by the phenomenon of the increasing number of acts criminalized in the United States Federal State Law in which the majority related to offenses of risk prevention causing overcriminalization. To prevent this, criminal law must be placed as a last resort. The state’s decision to criminalize an act must pay attention to internal and external constraints. The first includes the nontrivial harm or evil constraint, the culpability of the actor, and the proportionality of punishment, while the second is related to the substantiality of the state’s authority to punish. The thought is relevant to be adopted in the criminalization policy in Indonesia, especially regarding the principle of the blameworthiness of conduct, the severity of punishment must weigh the dangerousness of the (actor) offenses, and criminalization should not be taken if other means are equally effective or even more effective to achieve the goal.


Abstrak


Douglas Husak dikenal luas terutama di Amerika Serikat dan Eropa sebagai teoretisi terkemuka yang menggabungkan antara disiplin filsafat hukum dan hukum pidana. Tulisan-tulisan Husak kebanyakan diarahkan pada penggunaan sarana koersif negara melalui hukum pidana seminimal mungkin. Teori hukum pidana minimalis yang dicetuskannya dilatarbelakangi fenomena semakin banyaknya perbuatan-perbuatan yang dikriminalisasi dalam undang-undang Negara Federal Amerika dan mayoritas terkait offenses of risk prevention sehingga menimbulkan kelebihan kriminalisasi. Untuk mencegahnya, hukum pidana harus ditempatkan sebagai sarana terakhir. Keputusan negara untuk mengkriminalisasi suatu perbuatan harus memperhatikan pembatas internal dan pembatas eksternal. Yang pertama meliputi sifat jahat dan dampak kerugian/kerusakan yang begitu serius dari dilakukannya suatu tindak pidana, kesalahan pembuat, dan proporsionalitas pidana; sedangkan yang kedua terkait substansialitas kewenangan negara untuk memidana. Pemikiran Husak relevan untuk diadopsi dalam kebijakan kriminalisasi di Indonesia terutama menyangkut prinsip ketercelaan suatu perbuatan, penetapan beratnya ancaman pidana mengacu pada seriusitas delik dan kesalahan pembuat, dan kriminalisasi tidak boleh ditempuh jika cara-cara lain sama efektif atau bahkan lebih efektif untuk mencapai tujuan.

Article Details

Section
Articles

References

Artikel, Buku, dan Laporan

Ali, Mahrus. “Pencegahan Dampak Ovekriminalisasi dalam Undang-undang Bidang Lingkungan Hidup”. Disertasi, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, 2019.

Ali, Mahrus. “Proporsionalitas dalam Kebijakan Formulasi Sanksi Pidana”. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 25, 1 (2018): 137-58. DOI: 10.20885/iustum.vol25.iss1.art7.

Akbari, Anugerah Rizki. Potret Kriminalisasi Pasca Reformasi dan Urgensi Reklasifikasi Tindak Pidana di Indonesia. Jakarta: Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, 2015.

Arief, Barda Nawawi. Bunga Rampai Kebijakan Hukum Pidana. Bandung: PT. Citra Aditya Bakti, 2005.

Arief, Barda Nawawi. Kapita Selekta Hukum Pidana. Bandung: PT. Citra Aditya Bakti, 2013.

Arief, Barda Nawawi. Masalah Penegakan Hukum dan Kebijakan Hukum Pidana dalam Penanggulangan Kejahatan. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Group, 2010.

Arief, Barda Nawawi. Pendekatan Keilmuan dan Pendekatan Religius dalam Rangka Optimalisasi dan Reformasi Penegakan Hukum (Pidana) di Indonesia. Semarang: Pustaka Magister, 2015.

Baker, Dennis J. “Constitutionalizing the Harm Principle”. Criminal Justice Ethics, 27, 2 (2008): 3-28.

Bendor, Ariel L. dan Hadar Dancing-Rosenberg. “Unconstitutional Criminalization”. New Criminal Law Review, 19, 2 (2016): 171-207. DOI: 10.1525/nclr.2016.19.2.171.

Berry III, William W. “Promulgating Proportionality”. Georgia Law Review, 46 (2011): 69-115.

Brown, Darryl K. “Can Criminal Law Be Controlled?”. Michigan Law Review, 108, 6 (2010): 971-91.

Donoso M, Alfonso. “Douglas Husak, Overcriminalization. The Limits of the Criminal Law”. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 4, 1 (2010): 99-104. DOI: 10.1007/s11572-009-9084-7.

Eldar, Shachar. “Criminal Law, Parental Authority, and the State”. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 12, 4 (2018): 695-705. DOI: 10.1007/s11572-017-9452-7.

Fisher, Geoff. Sentencing Severity for ‘Serious’ and ‘Significant’ Offences: A Statistical Report. Australia: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2011.

Flores, Imer. “Proportionality in Constitutional and Human Rights Interpretation”. Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper, 13 (2013): 83-113.

Goh, Joel. “Proportionality-An Unattainable Ideal in the Criminal Justice System”. Manchester Student Law Review, 2 (2013): 41-72.

Green, Stuart P. “Is There Too Much Criminal Law?”. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6 (2009): 737-49.

Harkrisowo, Harkristuti. Kebijakan Formulasi Sanksi Pidana & Dilema Proporsionaltias: The Forgotten Issue. Makalah Pelatihan Hukum Pidana bagi Dosen dan Praktisi Hukum Pidana, diselenggarakan Fakultas Hukum Universitas Bayangkara Surabaya dan Masyarakat Hukum Pidana dan Kriminologi, Surabaya, 29/11 sampai 1/12/2017.

Hiariej, Eddy O.S. “KPK dan Perintang Peradilan”. Kompas, 23/1/2018: 6.

Hirsch, Andrew von. “Commensurability and Crime Prevention: Evaluating Formal Sentencing Structures and Their Rationale”. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 74, 1 (1983): 209-48.

Husak, Douglas. “Applying Ultima Ratio: A Skeptical Assessment”. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 2, 2(2005): 535-45.

Husak, Douglas. “Aspiration, Execution, and Controversy: Reply to My Critics”. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 12, 2 (2018): 351-62. DOI: 10.1007/s11572-017-9446-5.

Husak, Douglas. “Crimes Outside the Core”. Tulsa Law Review, 39, 4 (2004): 755-80.

Husak, Douglas. “Criminal Law at the Margins”. Criminal Law and Philosophy 14, 3 (2020): 381-93. DOI: 10.1007/s11572-019-09505-9.

Husak, Douglas. “Criminal Law Textbooks and Human Betterment”. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7, 1 (2009): 267-74.

Husak, Douglas. “Holistic Retributivism”. California Law Review, 88, 3 (2000): 991-1000. DOI: 10.2307/3481203.

Husak, Douglas. “Is the Criminal Law Important?”. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 1, 1 (2003): 261-71.

Husak, Douglas. “Lifting the Cloak: Preventive Detention as Punishment”. San Diego Law Review, 48, 4 (2011): 1173-204.

Husak, Douglas. “Mistake of Law and Culpability”. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 4, 2 (2010): 135-59. DOI: 10.1007/s11572-010-9092-7.

Husak, Douglas. Overcriminalization the Limits of the Criminal Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Husak, Douglas. “Reservation about Overcriminalization”. New Criminal Law Review,14, 1 (2011): 97-107. DOI: 10.1525/nclr.2011.14.1.97.

Husak, Douglas. “The Price of Criminal Law Skepticism: Ten Functions of the Criminal Law”. New Criminal Law Review, 23, 1 (2020): 27-59. DOI: 10.1525/nclr.2020.23.1.27.

Husak, Douglas. “Why Punish Attempts at all? Yaffe on ‘the Transfer Principle’’. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 6, 3 (2012): 399-410. DOI: 10.1007/s11572-012-9147-z.

Husak, Douglas N. “Reasonable Risk Creation and Over-inclusive Legislation”. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 1, 2 (1998): 599-626. DOI: 10.1525/nclr.1998.1.2.599.

Husak, Douglas N. “Retribution in Criminal Theory”. San Diego Law Review, 37,4 (2000): 959-86.

Husak, Douglas N. “The Problem of Criminalization”. New Jersey Lawyer, 205 (2000): 18-21.

Husak, Douglas N dan Craig ACallender. “Wilful Ignorance, Knowledge, and the ‘Equal Culpability’ Thesis: A Study of the Deeper Significance of the Principle of Legality”. Wisconsin Law Review, 1994, 1 (1994): 29-69.

Luna, Erik. “Punishment Theory, Holism, and the Procedural Conception of Restorative Justice”. Utah Law Review, 2003, 1 (2003): 205-302.

Luthan, Salman. “Kebijakan Penal mengenai Kriminalisasi di Bidang Keuangan”. Disertasi, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, 2007.

Mandiberg, Susan F. dan Michael G. Faure. “A Graduated Punishment Approach to Environmental Crimes: Beyond Vindication of Administrative Authority in the United States and Europe”. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 34, 2 (2009): 447-511.

McGorrery, Paul. “The Philosophy of Criminalisation: A Review of Duff et al.’s Criminalisation Series”. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 12, 1 (2018): 185-207. DOI: 10.1007/s11572-017-9416-y.

Muladi dan Barda NawawiArief. Teori-teori dan Kebijakan Hukum Pidana. Bandung: Alumni, 1998.

Muladi. Kapita Selekta Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Dipenogoro, 1995.

Munro, Vanessa E. “Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law”. New Criminal Law Review, 12, 2 (2009): 323-26. DOI: 10.1525/nclr.2009.12.2.323.

Nicolson, Donald dan Lois Bibbing. Feminist Perspective on Criminal Law. London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2000.

Nowak, Manfrek. Introduction to the International Human Rights Regime. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003.

O'Connell, Michael dan Anthony Whelan. “Taking Wrongs Seriously Public Perceptions of Crime Seriousness”. British Journal of Criminology, 36, 2 (1996): 299-318.

Packer, Herbert L. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. California: Standord University Press, 1968.

Ramsay, Peter. “Overcriminalization as Vulnerable Citizenship”. New Criminal Law Review, 13, 2 (2010): 262-84. DOI: 10.1525/nclr.2010.13.2.262.

Republik Indonesia, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat. Buku Memori Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia Periode 20142-2019. Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal DPR RI, 2019.

Ristroph, Alice. “Proportionality as a Principle of Limited Goverment”. Duke Law Journal, 55, 2 (2005): 263-331.

Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences. “Douglas Husak”. https://philosophy.rutgers.edu/people/faculty/details/182-faculty1/faculty-profiles/605-dhusak. Diakses 3/2/2021.

Schneider, Gregory S. “Sentencing Proportionality in the States”. Arizona Law Review, 54, 1 (2012): 241-75.

Smith, Rhona K.M. Textbook on International Human Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Smith, Stephen F. “Overcoming Overcriminalization”. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102, 3 (2012): 537-91.

Spader, Dean J. “Megatrends in Criminal Justice Theory”. American Journal of Criminal Law, 13, 2 (1986): 157-98.

Stewart, Hamish. “The Limits of the Harm Principle”. CriminalLaw and Philosophy, 4, 1 (2010): 17-35. DOI: 10.1007/s11572-009-9082-9.

Supriyadi. “Penetapan Tindak Pidana Sebagai Kejahatan dan Pelanggaran dalam Undang-undang Pidana Khusus”. Mimbar Hukum, 27, 3 (2015): 389-403. DOI: 10.22146/jmh.15878.

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Department of Justice. “The Principle of Proportionality and the Concept of Margin of Appreciation in Human Rights Law”. Basic Law Bulletin Issue, 15 (2013): 2-10.

Torti, Julia L. “Accounting for Punishment in Proportionality Review”. New York University Law Review, 88, 5 (2013): 1908-52.

United Nations, Commission on Human Rights. Siracusa Principle on Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 28/9/1984. Tersedia pada https://www.refworld.org/docid/4672bc122.html.

Wallerstein, Shlomit. “Criminalising Remote Harm and the Case of Anti-Democratic Activity”. Cardozo Law Review, 28 (2007): 2697-737.

Yaffe, Gideon. “Is Akrasia Necessary for Culpability? On Douglas Husak’s Ignorance of Law”. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 12, 2 (2018): 341-49. DOI: 10.1007/s11572-017-9443-8.

Yankah, Ekow N. “A Paradox in Overcriminalization”. New Criminal Law Review, 14, 1 (2011): 1-34. DOI: 10.1525/nclr.2011.14.1.1.

Zimmerman, Michael J. “Recklessness, Willful Ignorance, and Exculpation”. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 12, 2 (2018): 327-39. DOI: 10.1007/s11572-017-9424-y.

Peraturan Hukum

Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Lembaran Negara Tahun 1999 Nomor 140, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 3874.

Republik Indonesia. Undang-undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2007 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Perdagangan Orang. Lembaran Negara Tahun 2007 Nomor 58, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 4720.

Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2009 tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup. Lembaran Negara Tahun 2009 Nomor 140, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 5059.

Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2009 tentang Narkotika. Lembaran Negara Tahun 2009 Nomor 143, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 5062.

Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 18 Tahun 2013 tentang Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Perusakan Hutan. Lembaran Negara Tahun 2013 Nomor 130, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Nomor 5432.