Legal Literacy - Self-defense cases (Noodweer) are once again in the spotlight in Indonesia. This article thoroughly examines the controversy surrounding the application of law regarding forced defense, case examples, and governing regulations. Can defending oneself from robbers be considered a crime? Find the answers here.

Self-Defense Cases in the Spotlight

Currently, netizens' attention is again directed towards the chaotic application of law in Indonesia. This case has attracted public attention and become a hotline in several news channels. In short, the chronology is that someone was intercepted and robbed while traveling, and to save his life, the victim stabbed the robber's stomach with a sharp weapon he was carrying, unfortunately killing the perpetrator on the spot. This has made the victim a suspect in the murder.

R. Susilo also gave an example related to this forced defense, such as a thief who takes another person's belongings, then the thief attacks the person who owns the belongings with a dagger, then that person can fight back to defend himself and the items to be stolen, because the thief has attacked and resisted the right and the attack must be sudden or threatening at that moment. However, if the thief has been caught, then the person should not defend himself by hitting the thief, because at that time there was no attack at all from the thief, either against the goods or the person.

Furthermore, the victim was eventually charged with a crime on the grounds that he had killed a robber who threatened him. So, should we just stand by and watch the robber hurt us physically, steal our belongings, or even threaten our lives? Undeniably, this is something that law enforcement officials need to pay more attention to regarding defense in emergency situations.

Can Noodweer Be an Instrument for Eliminating Crime?

In essence, a person who can be held criminally responsible is a person who commits an act prohibited by law, while noodweer has clear legitimacy regarding the rule that it is permissible to do so in the eyes of the law. In line with this, Van Hamel agrees that forced defense cannot be criminalized because forced defense according to the law is a right whose legal basis is regulated in the Criminal Code so that it is used as a legal defense.

A person who commits a criminal act should be subject to criminal sanctions, but this also depends on how the act committed contains an error. If it is proven that an act contains an error, then it is definitely a criminal act. However, a criminal act can be removed from its error for two reasons, namely reasons for excuse and reasons for justification. One of the reasons for eliminating crime is the forced defense of someone who feels threatened.

The regulations governing forced defense are in Article 49 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) which explains that a person who commits forced defense cannot be criminalized. Because the responsibility is not borne by the victim who ultimately defends his safety.

Moreover, the right to life has been guaranteed its existence and legal protection as stipulated in Articles 28A to 28J of the 1945 Constitution of the State of Indonesia (UUD NRI 1945) which basically guarantees that the state has the right to recognize the right to life of every person and has the right to defend that right to life. So, it can be ascertained that maintaining individual human rights as long as it is within the limits permitted by law is a natural thing for everyone to do.

If there is a case where the victim ultimately becomes a suspect, is it legal? Of course, if this happens, it can be a real example of the weak integrity and professionalism of law enforcement officials in Indonesia because they do not carry out their duties and authorities in accordance with the mandate of the legislation. Moreover, this is already clearly and in detail stated in the National Criminal Code. Of course, it becomes clear that the regulation is the legal umbrella for forced defense actions. In other words, if someone hurts another person for the safety and security of themselves, they cannot be criminalized.

Real Negation of Court Decisions

Unfortunately, these various theories are contradictory to the Padang District Court Decision Number 372.Pid.B/PN.Pdg which imposed a prison sentence on the person who was initially the victim of persecution who ultimately defended himself, resulting in the murder of the perpetrator. In short, AF (the perpetrator) took out a machete that he was going to throw at ES (the victim), but EP quickly stabbed AF with a knife with the intention of helping ES from AF's attack. Sadly, the fight ended with AF's death.

The Padang District Court as the place to try the case determined ES as a suspect in the case with a sentence of two years and six months. This is certainly not in line with the concept of forced defense itself, because ES did this to avoid attacks from EF first, which was assisted by EP. In fact, the victim was made a suspect in this case.

The judge gave consideration that from the point of view of the legislation Article 49 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code that the defendant was not proven to have committed forced defense, because based on the requirements of Article 49 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code there are provisions for the category of forced defense as follows:

  1. There was a sudden attack.
  2. The sudden attack was against the law.
  3. The forced defense was a necessity.
  4. The method of defense was appropriate.

So, the attack must appear instantly, as must the retaliation.

Based on some of the explanations above, it can be concluded that a person who was initially a victim but became a suspect cannot be fully said to have committed forced defense because there are several requirements that must be met to state that it is a forced defense. If it meets certain conditions, a person's crime can be eliminated with a justifying reason, namely having committed forced defense to protect themselves from the threat of danger.