An example is the sinking of a ship. Ship XYZ sank in the middle of the sea and the hull was destroyed. A finds a floating wooden board and uses it. On the other hand, B tries to grab the wooden board even though it can only be used by one person. In this condition, if A chooses to seize the wooden board in order to prioritize his legal interests, namely survival, then he cannot be prosecuted.

An example is the presence of someone as a witness. A is a witness in the murder case of B which is being tried at the Surabaya District Court. On the other hand, A is also a witness in the case of theft of car C which is being tried at the Medan District Court. According to Article 224 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, someone must be present as a witness. In this condition, if A chooses to appear in one of the courts to fulfill his legal obligations, then he cannot be prosecuted.

An example is the shift change in a shop. A is a shop employee who has to work the morning shift, while B will work the night shift. One time, when A was about to go home, B contacted A to replace him because B had to take his wife to give birth. If it is related to existing legal obligations, then A can just go home. However, because there is B's legal interest, A violates this legal obligation and helps B.

Based on the description above, the pressure on coercion must come from outside the perpetrator. This is in accordance with the Hoge Raad Decision of June 26, 1916 which reads:

“… a pressure that comes from one's own heart that has driven oneself to do something, which is solely based on one's own opinion regarding the values ​​of propriety and community of institutions and regulations, according to the law, is not a overmacht.”

According to Prof Moeljatno, Prof Roeslan Saleh, and Van Hattum, coercion is an excuse. On the other hand, Jonkers assesses that coercion in Article 48 of the Criminal Code is a justification. Simons, from a point of view that puts forward both, argues that coercion is an excuse, while a state of emergency is a justification.

Forced Defense

Apart from coercion, there is also forced defense or noodweer which is regulated in Article 49 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code. A person who takes forced defense action because there is an attack or threat of attack against himself or other people, whether body, honor, morality, or property, is not subject to criminal penalties. Some of the requirements to be classified as noodweer, among others:

  1. There is an attack or threat of attack that is instantaneous, directly threatening, against the law, is ongoing, and against the body, honor, morality or property of oneself or other people.
  2. There is no other way to ward off the attack or threat of attack, and
  3. The defense carried out must be balanced and necessary.

Thus, Article 49 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code does not apply if the attack has not yet started, one of the above conditions is not met, or even the attack has been completed. This is in line with Prof Moeljatno's opinion that the defense begins from the start of the threat of attack until the attack is completed. The differences between forced defense and a state of emergency are as follows.

[ninja_tables id="5889"]

Forced Defense that Exceeds the Limits

Apart from forced defense, there is also forced defense that exceeds the limits or noodweer excess stipulated in Article 49 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code. If excessive defense is carried out due to severe mental shock as a result of the attack, no punishment shall be imposed. Noodweer excess is an excusable defense.

Excessive forced defense occurs when a counterattack is continued even when the initial attack has ended, there is no balance in the defense, and there is no balance between the interests initially protected and the interests of the opponent who is attacked again. The conditions for a noodweer excess not to be penalized, namely that the excess is a form of defense that is necessary, a direct result of severe mental shock, and there is a causal relationship between the attack and the mental shock caused.

Besides noodweer excess, there is also putative forced defense, which is a person's assumption that there will be an attack or thinking that the attack is against the law when it is not. In short, the attack only exists in his imagination.

In addition to the types of reasons for removal crimes contained in the Criminal Code, it is also known that there are three other reasons for removing crimes outside the law, including:

Tuchtrecht

The right to supervise and educate that is inherent for teachers, parents or guardians. For example, when a mother pinches the leg of a fifteen-year-old child who does not carry out worship, it is not considered abuse because it is still within reasonable limits to educate her child.

Beroepsrecht

The right of office of doctors/medical personnel in carrying out medical actions. For example, when a doctor injects a patient, it is not considered abuse because it aims to cure and there is already informed consent to the patient.

Toestemming

The right to do something that is prohibited by law. For example, when there is a wrestling match. Apart from the aspect of hitting each other not being a criminal act, but after the match is over, the fighters may not bring the existing injuries as a basis for criminal investigation and a basis for compensation in law civil law. Another example is the inapplicability of Article 406 of the Criminal Code regarding the destruction of other people's property in an attempt to perform 'ketok magic'.