Suchergebnisse

Progressivism is in essence the principles, beliefs, or practices of progressives, i.e. ones believing in moderate social and political progress in the human condition by means of governmental action. Today's progressives still fail to offer a coherent account of their core philosophy. They are identified more often by 'what it is not' than by 'what it is'. Progressive law requires the state to embrace a boundless function and use its power to tell people what they must and must not do so as to allow them to get hold of their desired affluence. This concept is embodied in the legal principle Malum Prohibitum. Legal philosophical overview reveals that with this principle progressive law may have the potential to manufacture a system of laws that excessively empowers the state so that liberty is crushed and the light of a free society is replaced with the darkness of tyranny.

The law is applied is to reach the benefit of the object subject to the law. The concept of benefit discussed by the scholars of the past up to the time of Al-Syatibi, is the concept of theocentric benefit, namely benefit based on the text, so that the intended benefit must be in accordance with the wishes of the legislators (maqsud al-Syar'i). Based on this, the concept of theocentric benefits must be formulated into anthropocentric benefits. Namely, benefit based on the desire and goodness of the object of law (maqsud al-mukallaf). The progressive law, which is a law that is not bound by the law or in other words the law based on conscience. So, through this progressive law will be able to realize the benefit for the joint.

Ultimum remedium is one of the principles contained in Indonesian criminal law which says that criminal law should be made a final effort in the case of law enforcement. However, law enforcement through the criminal justice system is currently still dominated by the positivism mindset, a way of (criminal) law enforcement which is only based on laws and regulations. In many cases, Criminal Law is used as the only way of order. The purpose of this research is to describe the concept of Ultimum remedium in criminal law, criminal law enforcement practices in Indonesia, and criminal law enforcement concepts in the progressive law paradigm. This research used a philosophical approach discussing law enforcement idealism in the future. The data used were the qualitatively analyzed secondary data. The research results showed that the Ultimum remedium principle has not been completely implemented in law enforcement. Consequently, the burden for crime settlements got bigger and made the law enforcers busier. The Ultimum remedium principle is supported by various considering bases or grounds from the constitutional law aspect, political science, criminal law, and humanism consideration or human rights. Law enforcement in Indonesia was viewed as stagnant and discriminative law enforcement. It was illustrated as a spider web that can only trap the weak but will be easily torn by the rich and strong. Factors inhibiting law enforcement in Indonesia include weak political will and political action of the state leaders to make law as the commander. The regulations and laws reflect the political interests of authorities more than those of the society. Thus, criminal law enforcement is greatly necessary for the progressive law paradigm. Progressivity is greatly required in law enforcement. Progressive law departs from the humanistic perspective. Thinking progressively means having the courage to get out from the law absolutism thinking mainstream and positioning law in the relative position located in the entire humanistic problems.

A new and recognizable group of reform-minded prosecutors has assumed the mantle of progressive prosecution. The term is hard to define in part because its adherents embrace a diverse set of policies and priorities. In comparing the contemporary movement with Progressive Era prosecutors, this Article has two related goals. First, it seeks to better define progressive prosecution. Second, it uses a historical comparison to draw some lessons for the current movement. Both groups of prosecutors were elected on a wave of popular support. Unlike today's mainstream prosecutors who tend to campaign and labor in relative obscurity, these two sets of prosecutors received a good deal of popular attention and support. The Progressive Era reformers introduced the notion promoted by current progressive prosecutors that crime is a social phenomenon, which community services are better equipped to address than prisons. The Progressive Era movement also sought to implement professional norms and practices to promote the values of fairness and proportionality. Contemporary progressive prosecutors inherit this legacy but tend not to emphasize these professional values. The Article concludes that the professional values championed during the Progressive Era are critical, in conjunction with new programs and policies, to ensure that as innovation helps achieve social justice, prosecution remains in the hands of those committed to fair and even-handed justice.

Children are special legal subjects, judging from the legal responsibilities they have. The legal conception places children as legal subjects that are different from adults, both in the civil realm and in the realm of criminal law. Progressive law, as well as placing children as legal subjects that are special in nature, that is, they are included in "those who are vulnerable" and need special protection and treatment. This article will discuss the different treatment of children, who are in conflict with the law, not as a form of discrimination but as a form of special treatment for special legal subjects. The writing of this article uses a normative legal research method with a conceptual approach and legislation. The results of this research are that children as a vulnerable group need to get special attention and special treatment to support the process of growth and development as the nation's next generation

The enactment of the law in society aims to create justice, legal certainty, benefit and social empowerment for the community, to lead to the ideals of the court as a protector of society, the judge must always prioritize the 4 (four) legal objectives above in every decision he makes. This is in line with what the law is based on, namely the law for the welfare of the community. The poor are often victims of unfair law enforcement due to their ignorance of law enforcement and financial incompetence. The purpose of this study is to analyze the progressive law applied to poor defendants seeking substantive justice and to find out and analyze the state should be able to assist poor defendants in the judicial process in accordance with the rule of law principle. This research uses normative juridical method. Judges in deciding legal cases for the poor should have a progressive view, thus judges will conceptualize each article in the legislation not only as a statement about the existence of a causal (cause and effect) relationship that is straightforward according to logical law but also always contains moral substance originating from ethics and professionalism of judges.

Law enforcement prohibiting the giving of money or other material to influence voters in both the legislative and regional head elections, although in practice is invisible and is no longer a public secret, is very weak. Rarely may it even have never happened, law enforcement is carried out against regional head candidates and deputies who are found to be giving money or other material, known as money politics to win their partners, it is done transparently, and it is not done until the court stage. During this time, the matter happened only to certain individuals, who were caught red-handed giving money or distributing groceries from prospective regional head pairs to the community. They had toundergo legal proceedings, while the intellectual actor was never revealed. So it is deemed necessary to have a reconstruction of Law Number 8 of 2015. Key words: Reconstruction of Law Enforcement, Money Politics, Progressive Law

This article explores the public life of a law enacted in the post-liberalization era for the tribal-dominated areas (or Scheduled Areas [SAs] of the Indian Constitution) of India. This law, the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) (PESA) Act, 1996 has been termed by many grassroots tribal organizations as 'progressive' and 'historic', because it gives some crucial rights to the gram sabha of SAs. Apart from giving a contextual understanding of the enactment of the law and its provisions, this article evaluates the general pattern of the experiences of its implementation, and in this context, focuses in particular on the case study of Rajasthan. It aims to underline the basic argument that though the implementation of this law has been highly dismal, it has got a public life for itself and has created enormous awareness among the tribals for their rights, which has led to the emergence of 'legalism from below' and deeper democratization in these areas.

One of the materials for the amendment of the 1945 Constitution is the guarantee of human rights and constitutional rights of citizens. This change can be seen as a manifestation of awareness about the importance of protecting the human rights and constitutional rights of citizens, which grows and becomes the spirit of reform. Local governments have an important role in presenting the spirit of reform by presenting Regional Regulations for the Fulfillment of Human Rights. The material model for the content of the Local regulation Fulfillment of Human Rights based on progressive law relies on three things, namely: laws and regulations that regulate human rights both vertically and horizontally, the contextual reality of the recognition and protection of human rights found in local communities and thirdly for humans and humanity. Systematically, the division of chapters containing the content in it consists of: general provisions; principles and objectives; type of human rights; human rights recognition; protection of human rights; fulfillment of human rights; community participation; guidance and supervision; funding and closing provisions. By using the socio-legal approach, this paper describes the material model for the content of regional regulations regarding the fulfillment of human rights based on progressive law.

The development of philosophical science spreads to aspects of the operation of law along with the dynamics of human civilization. However, this philosophical concept must be filtered with the essential values, including Indonesia. This is because the fusion of philosophical ideas with elements as stated in the state constitution of a nation must be interpreted and crystallized in various legal products issued by a government. This study aims to describe the Pancasila perspective on the development of legal philosophy in Indonesia and analyze the meaning of 'justice' from a progressive legal perspective. This research is legal research using a conceptual approach and legislation. The legal materials used in this research are primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. These two materials are considered to examine the legal issues raised in this research. The result of this study is that the philosophy of law in Indonesia is based on the precepts of all the principles in Pancasila. Pancasila is actually in line with the flow of legal philosophy, namely Sociological Jurisprudence. This departs from the three dimensions of Pancasila, which is oriented to give birth to harmony from the implementation of rights and obligations in every existing legal subject. Then, the concept of progressive law provides the view that Justice is more oriented as substantive Justice, not procedural Justice. This is because Justice is the essence of the law itself; so that Justice cannot be calculated mathematically, cannot be interpreted purely textually, or can only be said to be 'fair' when there are two people who have the same share as others.

This research come up from the premise that in the execution of their duties during this time, the Constitutional Court issued many decisions by some legal experts considered break the limits of his authority.One is on a judicial review which contains ultra petita decisions. Regarding to that condition, some parties considered that the Court has acted as an institution that is authoritarian and violated its authority, but on the other hand, the Court instead declared itself as the guardian of democracy and substantive justice. Author argued that, the prohibition to use a doctrine of ultra petita for judge was not generally applicable. Through normative approach and systematic interpretation said that on Law concerning to Constitutional Court (MK, Mahkamah Konstitusi) or other MK decisions did not give any possibilities for Judge to make an ultra petita decision.