JUMPING CONCLUSION DALAM PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NOMOR 10/PID.B/2021/PN.PLK

This study aims to determine, examine and analyze the Jumping Conclusion in Court Decision Number 10/PID.B/2021/PN.PLK. The research method used in this research is qualitative juridical research, namely by analyzing laws and regulations and court decisions.
normative research which is qualitative in nature, namely by analyzing laws and regulations and court decisions. This study concludes that in Court Decision Number 10/PID.B.2021/PN.PLK there is a jumping conclusion or deciding a matter without being supported by the laws and regulations.
or deciding a matter without being supported by basic evidence. Article 197 paragraph (1) letter d of the sentencing decision letter contains, considerations that are concisely compiled regarding the facts and circumstances along with the evidence obtained from the examination at the trial which is the basis for the decision.
obtained from the examination at the trial which is the basis for the prosecution of the defendant's guilt. Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code, valid evidence are witness testimony, expert testimony, letters, instructions, and testimony of the defendant. The basis of prosecution for the public prosecutor must be based on Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as well as the judge in deciding a case must be guided by Article 184 regarding valid evidence and Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code which states that the judge may not impose a sentence on a person unless at least two valid evidences have obtained a conviction that a criminal act really occurred and that the defendant is guilty of committing it. However, in
Court Decision Number 10/PID.B/2021/PN PLK the judge in deciding the punishment was not guided by the judge's rational in imposing punishment which must be based on Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In considering the legal facts and legal considerations, the panel did not examine carefully and did not thoroughly analyze the weaknesses in the evidence submitted, resulting in the panel not following the procedures of the negative evidentiary system which caused the judge's decision to be legally flawed.
the judge's decision is legally flawed. In this decision, the proof of legal facts and legal considerations has not fulfilled the aspects of justice.