Perwujudan Keadilan Substantif dalam perkara Pembunuhan (Studi Putusan Nomor 454/Pid.B/2024/PN.Sby)

Murder is a serious violation of human rights, particularly the right to life which
must be protected by law. Criminal law functions to impose appropriate sanctions
on perpetrators who violate an individual's right to life. This study aims to
analyze the judge's legal reasoning in the Surabaya District Court Decision
Number 454/Pid.B/2024/PN.Sby regarding the murder case committed by the
defendant, Gregorius Ronald Tannur, against the victim, Dini Sera Afrianti. The
research method used is qualitative with a case analysis approach, examining
court decisions, legislation, and interviews with legal experts. The findings from
the analysis of Decision Number 454/Pid.B/2024/PN.Sby indicate that the judge's
legal reasoning was inaccurate and unsystematic, resulting in an irrational
verdict. Relevant legal facts were disregarded, and the ruling did not meet the
four indicators of substantive justice: honesty, objectivity, rationality, and
impartiality. The judge was deemed dishonest for ignoring facts, not objective due
to discrepancies between legal facts and judicial considerations, and neither
rational nor impartial for prioritizing witness statements that favored the
defendant. Therefore, an evaluation of judicial legal reasoning methods is
necessary to ensure that court rulings are more rational, objective, and just.