Opinions Opinion

Dissenting Opinion in Criminal Case Judge's Decision

Dini Wininta Sari, S.H.

Contributor

11 Mar 2023 · 05:00 11 March 2023 05:00 WIB 4 minutes reading time: 4 minutes 2 read

Legal Literacy - This article explains about dissenting opinions or different opinions from judges in a decision and how decisions are made if there are differences of opinion among...

Dissenting Opinion in Criminal Case Judge's Decision

Opinion Note

This opinion article was written by a contributor/columnist. The views expressed are entirely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors.

CONTRIBUTOR PROGRAM

You can become a columnist at Legal Literacy.

Submit your legal opinion/analysis writing. If it is published, you have the opportunity to obtain a payout/honorarium in accordance with the provisions.

Submit Article Read Guidelines

Table of Contents

Judge's Verdict
Judge's Conviction Based on Valid Evidence
Dissenting Opinion or Differing Opinion in a Judge's Verdict
References

Section 2/3: Judge's Conviction Based on Valid Evidence

Judge's Conviction Based on Valid Evidence

Based on the principle of beyond reasonable doubt which is closely related to the provisions of Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) that judges must have a legitimate conviction or a conviction obtained from valid evidence in court, adjusted to the legal facts. Judges are prohibited from deciding a case based solely on objective facts and circumstances that occurred in a criminal event, but must truly apply their conviction to all facts and objective circumstances that state the defendant is proven guilty. In making a judge's decision, the conviction originating from the judge themselves is very necessary, provided that they still consider the evidence presented in court.

Dissenting Opinion or Differing Opinion in a Judge's Verdict

In a judge's verdict, there are times when they have different opinions or what is commonly called dissenting opinion. Dissenting opinion is a differing opinion from one or more judges who decide a case or a judge's differing opinion in a verdict, starting from legal facts, legal considerations, to the verdict.

Article 14 paragraph (3) of Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power regulates dissenting opinions, which explains that "In the event that a deliberation of the panel of judges cannot reach a unanimous agreement, the differing opinion of the judge must be included in the verdict."

Dissenting opinion is a real manifestation of the judge's personal freedom with the aim of finding material truth, including freedom towards fellow members of the panel of judges. Thus, judges can be personally responsible both morally and according to their conscience for every case that is examined, decided, and requires them to give an opinion.

Read Also:Understanding Criminal Liability

If in the deliberation before the pronouncement of the verdict a difference of opinion is found between one judge and another, the judge's decision will be taken by taking a majority vote or if an agreement has not been reached, it will be taken from the judge's opinion that is most favorable to the defendant. For judges who lose the vote in determining the verdict, they must accept the opinion of the majority of the panel of judges and are allowed to write their differing opinion from the verdict in a special book that is confidential and managed by the Head of the District Court.