SKRIPSI PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM DALAM MEMUTUSKAN PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA KASUS PERNIAGAAN SATWA LIAR (STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN NOMOR 61/PID.B/LH/221/PN MLG)

ABSTRACT
Name : Alifiah Rizki Amelia
NIM : 201710110311058
Title : Judge's Considerations in Deciding Criminal Cases in Wildlife Trafficking Cases (Case Study Decision Number 61/Pid.B/LH/221/PN Mlg)
Advisors :

The law on protecting animal biodiversity needs to be enforced because currently animal conservation is increasingly low, the cause of which is the emergence of wild animals. The problem formulation in this research is how judges consider termination in cases of crimes against wildlife. The aim of this research is to find out, understand and examine the Judge's Considerations in Deciding Criminal Law in Wildlife Trafficking Crime Cases (Case Study Decision Number 61/Pid.B/LH/221/PN Mlg)." The type of legal research is normative juridical. The main legal material used is Decision Number 61/Pid.B/LH/221/PN Mlg with other legislation. The results of the research show that the judge's considerations in deciding criminal cases in wildlife trafficking cases in Decision Number 61/Pid.B/LH/221/PN Mlg use 2 types of considerations, namely the judge's considerations, juridical and non-juridical. Several juridical considerations are based on the form of the defendant's violation of statutory regulations, including Article 21 Paragraph (2) letter a Jo Article 40 Paragraph (2) Law No. 5 of 1990 concerning Conservation of Biological Resources and Their Ecosystems, Government Regulation Number 7 of 1999 concerning Preservation of plant and animal species with the final attachment is contained in the Regulation of the Minister of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia No. 106 of 2018, Article 193 paragraph (1) KUHAP, Article 22 paragraph (4) KUHAP, Article 8 paragraph (2) Law no. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power, and Article 222 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Meanwhile, non-juridical considerations take into account the elements violated by the perpetrator from witness statements regarding the perpetrator's condition, especially the perpetrator's social background. This is one point of view that the sentence imposed by the panel of judges has not been proportional in terms of proportionality between the length of imprisonment as a substitute for a fine and the proportionality of the sentence with evidence from witnesses and experts and the judge's considerations regarding biodiversity loss and potential biodiversity loss. arising from criminal acts of animals that must be protected.