Background
Legal Literacy - As explained in the article entitled
“Conceptual Application of Formal Offenses in Criminal Law”, that offenses in
criminal law are divided into two, namely formal and material offenses. A brief definition and application of formal offenses have been explained in the article. Therefore, this article will review
material offenses as a conceptual unity in the criminal law paradigm.
At first glance, some might say that this material offense confronts or opposes the formal offense. The basis of this assumption most likely stems from the adjectives attached to the word offense itself, namely “formal” and “material,” which seem diametrically opposed. However, in the conceptual realm, these two terminologies are not entirely contradictory because the intersection does not make them have opposing meanings. For clarity, examples of material offenses will be presented along with additional differences in proving these two offenses in criminal law.
Material Offense
The understanding of a term cannot be separated from its linguistic understanding first because this linguistic understanding provides the original meaning. The original meaning of a terminology cannot be understood if it is separated from the original language that forms the term. Therefore, referring to the linguistic understanding has its own urgency.
A material offense can be understood linguistically as an offense attached to the nature of being "material." Therefore, the meaning of the word "material" needs to be addressed first. The word "material" can be traced as an adjective formed from the word "matter" or object. With its form as an adjective, the word "material" itself means the nature of materiality or the nature inherent in the object itself.
This material nature, when incorporated into a conceptual framework, leads to the understanding that what is meant by material is something directly related to "what" is being discussed. The matter or object referred to in this context is the object that is the focus of the discussion. For example, if a scientific discussion is held with the subject matter being "Globalization," then the object that is the focus of the discussion is "Globalization" itself.
It can be said that the object that is the focus is the core of a "formal" container, namely a discussion. Without this "material" core, the "formal" container in the form of a scientific discussion will be empty and meaningless. Meanwhile, if the "material" core is not given a "formal" container, it will not take shape. Therefore, these two aspects need each other instead of contradicting each other.
When attached to the word offense, the word material undergoes a semantic adjustment and does not fully contain its original meaning. A material offense does not mean an offense that refers to the "core" as a formal offense refers to the "form." A material offense can be said to be a "continuation" offense of a formal offense because the ultimate goal of a material offense is "further" than a formal offense.
In the paradigm of criminal law, a material offense is an offense that is considered complete if the "consequence" of a criminal act occurs. The formulation of a material offense does not care about the form of the criminal act because the focus is on the consequences of the act. If the consequences of a criminal act have occurred, then it is counted as a criminal act.
An example of a material offense is Article 338 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) which regulates murder. The complete wording of the article is as follows
“Anyone who intentionally takes the life of another person shall be threatened with imprisonment for a maximum of fifteen years for murder.”
If analyzed, it can be found that the focus of the material offense is the aspect of “consequence” that arises from an act, not the act itself. In the formulation of the article above, a person's actions will be said to be murder when the consequence of the act occurs, namely “the taking of another person's life.” The article does not detail what elements must be met for an act to be categorized as murder, such as using a sharp weapon and so on. The article clearly only focuses on the end point of an act, namely the occurrence of the taking of another person's life. As long as the consequence as the end point does not occur, a person's actions, in any form and in any way, are not categorized as murder.
The distinction between material and formal offenses influences the aspect of evidence as a unity in criminal law. The evidence for material and formal offenses is clearly different from one another and should not be confused because it will obscure legal certainty. Therefore, it is important to discuss this aspect, which has not been discussed or mentioned in the previous article.
Material offenses, as just described, are oriented towards the consequences of an act. The implication is that an act cannot be categorized as a criminal act if the consequences do not occur. For example, if someone shoots another person directly in the head but the person shot does not die, either because they can be saved or they manage to avoid it.
If it is proven that the shooting victim did not die, then the perpetrator cannot be charged with this murder article. Conversely, because the consequence of a criminal act, namely murder, does not occur, namely the taking of another person's life, then the act of someone shooting another person cannot be categorized as murder. The aspect of the consequences of a criminal act is the main orientation of the evidence.
Meanwhile, formal offenses emphasize the fulfillment of the elements of the criminal act without looking at the consequences as a continuation point of the act itself. A person who fulfills the elements of an offense in Article 362, as explained in the previous article, can be charged with that article. The evidence for this formal offense focuses on fulfilling the elements of the offense such as "taking" and "with the intention of possessing" without needing to look at the consequences. The meaning is that even if the thief returns the stolen goods, the thief can still be charged with this article. This formal offense does not see the aspect of consequences as a continuation point of a criminal act.
Comments (0)
Write a comment