Self-Defense and Substantive Justice

In the perspective of criminal law, Hogi's actions can be seen as a form of self-defense and defense of others. Although the pursuit is not by law enforcement officials, the context is a spontaneous reaction to a crime that is happening or has just happened. The new Criminal Code explicitly opens up space for a more humane assessment of situations like this. Unfortunately, the statements and attitudes of the police apparatus in this case actually show a weak understanding of the spirit of criminal law reform. Law enforcement seems to still be based on the old paradigm, which is rigid, formalistic, and ignores the social context. Whereas the new Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code require the apparatus to be more progressive, just, and oriented towards victim protection. When the apparatus fails to understand this, what emerges is not justice, but a flaw in legal logic. The law turns into a frightening tool, not a protector of society.

The Danger of Bad Precedent

This Sleman case has the potential to create a dangerous precedent. If victims of crime who react reasonably are discriminated against, then the state indirectly sends the wrong message to the public that it is safer to remain silent than to help or fight crime. This is certainly contrary to the purpose of criminal law, which should protect society from criminal acts. Furthermore, the handling of this case also erodes public trust in law enforcement institutions. Trust is the main capital of law enforcement. Without trust, the law will only be seen as a threat, not as a guardian of justice.

Returning the Law to Common Sense

The Hogi Minarya case should be a moment of reflection for law enforcement officials. The law does not live in a vacuum, it lives in the midst of a society that demands justice, not just procedural certainty. Making the victim a suspect is a form of failure to read the context and conscience of the law itself. It is time for law enforcers in Indonesia to truly abandon the rigid approach and start placing substantive justice as the main goal. If not, then the Sleman case will be recorded not as law enforcement, but as a major irony in legal history, when the state actually punishes those who are victims.