MODEL OF CRIMINAL CASE RESOLUTION OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS CAUSING DEATH ( Case Study in the Police Depatment of Special Region of Yogyakarta )

The present research seeks to find out a model of criminal case resolution of traffic accidents causing death in Traffic Directorate of Yogyakarta (DIY) Police Department through either criminal justice system or mediation. Socio-legal research or non-doctrinal research has been used for this research. The research location is located in the Traffic Directorate of Yogyakarta Police Department. The research data use primary and secondary data. The results of this research indicate that in Traffic Directorate of DIY Police Department criminal case of traffic accidents causing death is resolved through criminal justice system with a record of ordinary examination. It is in accordance with the Decree of Indonesian National Police Number 15 of 2013 regarding Procedures for Handling Traffic Accident. Meanwhile, mediation is never used to resolve such case since there exists no legal framework. The article, therefore, suggests that revision of the Decree should be made. The criminal case resolution of traffic accidents causing death should fall into two forms, namely willful misconduct and negligence. A case with willful misconduct should be resolved through criminal justice system, while that negligence is resolved through mediation.

more than 12 (twelve) years, or by a fine of not more than IDR 24,000,000 (twenty four million rupiahs)." Any person who commits the acts regulated in the above articles commits criminal acts, and therefore criminal laws must be enforced.This can be clear provided that the criminal act of traffic accident is committed with willful misconduct.Thus, the perpetrator should be responsible for what he did.The case resolution will be different if the accident occurs with negligence in which the perpetrator did not expect the accident to happen.
In reference to statutory laws, both willful misconduct (dolus) and negligence (culpa), are similar to other criminal acts, are solved through criminal justice system.
Criminal justice system actually seeks to protect and raise dignity of human, including victims, perpetrators, and society.The criminal justice has to guarantee and realize rights of all citizens involved in a criminal case process.The criminal justice is expected to provide justice for all population groups.
Criminal cases including traffic accident are practically solved through discretion of law enforcement instead of the criminal justice process, or through a deliberation mechanism/ peace agreement and/or reconciliation institutions, one of which is customary.Attorney General can ignore cases through such institutions as deponering (the official halt of a criminal case) and afkoop (redemption) and drop the cases if determined maximum amount of fine has been paid.
Police officers sometimes do the same if a committed criminal act is included as trivial case; they merely scold and briefly arrest the perpetrator ( Sudarto, 1986 : 44 ).This resolution type is called mediation.
Criminal case resolution through mediation has been stipulated in Law Number 11 of 2012 regarding Juvenile Justice System until now; it is termed diversion.There is no legal framework for criminal act of traffic accidents which regulates a resolution through mediation.
Criminal case resolution through mediation should be positively responded by all law enforcement officers since it reduces socioeconomic burden of the state and also saves the officers' energy in serving justice for communities.Seen from socioeconomic view, mediation enables to reduce state budget since the capacity of correctional facility/ prison (Lembaga Pemasyarakatan) and the number of officers do not need to be added.Furthermore, the state does not need to provide food for the prisoners.
The research aims at finding out a model of criminal case resolution of traffic accidents causing death through criminal justice system or mediation, as well as criteria of each of the resolution used.Apart from that, it is expected that the research results can develop insights of Law, particularly those which are dealing with common criminal case resolution.
In provision of criminal law, three stages emerge, namely formulation, application, execution.The first one is defined as a stage in which statutory criminal law is formulated by a legislature.The second one is a stage in which the criminal law is applied by police officers.
Meanwhile, the third is, by definition, a stage in which judicial judgment is executed by prison officers.
The research focuses on criminal law policy in stage of application; it examines how police officers resolve criminal case of traffic accidents causing death based on Article 310 section (1), (2), (3), and (4), as well as Article 311 section (1), ( 2

B. PROBLEM STATEMENTS
This article aimed to observe a model of criminal case resolution of traffic accidents causing death which analysis case study by Yogyakarta Police Department through either criminal justice system and mediation and criteria of each of the resolution used.

C. RESEARCH METHOD
The research is descriptive research, i.e. a research conducted to gain a real view of the criminal case resolution of traffic accidents, as well as the criteria used in the model.From views of legal research, it is categorized as non-doctrinal research carried out to examine police attitudes.The research location is Yogyakarta Police Department.Data is obtained from primary and secondary data, comprises of Law Number 22 of 2009 and files of traffic accident cases listed by Traffic Directorate of Yogyakarta Police Department.The primary data were collected by using interviews with police officers, while the secondary data were collected by using documentation of files of traffic accidents causing death.(Robert K Yin, 1996: 103 -108).

A. Criminal Act
Criminal act is derived from a Dutch term 'Strafbaarfeit'.The word 'strafbaar' means 'can be convicted', while the word 'strafbaar' is translated to be 'a fact', or 'an event ' (JCT. Simorangkir. 1983: 49).Legal experts use the the term differently from each other.Moeljanto uses the term 'perbuatan pidana' (criminal action) which refers to an action forbidden by a regulation and threatened with a penalty.The prohibition is addressed to the action, while the penalty to the perpetrator (Moeljatno, 1980: 75).Dissimilarly, Satochid Kartanegara uses the term 'delik' (offense) (Satochid n y: 74).Meanwhile, Lamintang (2011: 172) and Pompe use 'tindak pidana' (criminal act).Pompe defines it as norm violation (disturbance of legal order) commited with fault by perpetrator.Threatened penalty is therefore required to maintain the legal order and to guarantee public interest (Lamintang, 2011: 173).Wiryono Prodjodikoro interprets it as an act of which the perpetrator can be convicted (Soedarto, 1987: 33).Among the definitions, Pompe's and Prodjodikoro's are the most suitable in the current situation due to the use of the word 'perpetrators' meaning that they cover not only individual perpetrator, but also corporation.
Soedarto noticed two contrast groups of scholars having monistic and dualistic perspectives.The first one, regards constituents of criminal act as an intact wholeness, and therefore it is possible to convict the perpetrator.In contrast, the second tends to separate between the criminal act and the perpetrator, meaning that the act meets constituents of statutory formulation.Whether or not the perpetrator can be convicted and whether or not the perpetrator meets certain qualification to be convicted should be examined separately.In other words, those having dualistic perspective separate between criminal act and criminal responsibility.
Soedarto further pointed out that when it comes to a judgment on whether or not a perpetrator will be convicted of a crime, both perspectives in the end show similarity since all of the constituents in the views of both monistic and dualistic perspectives should exist in the judgment.The dualistic perspective includes benefits to strengthen the concept-whether certain requirements are adhered to the action or the perpetrator (Soedarto, 1987 :45).
According to Van Hamel, 'strafbaarfeit' (criminal act) is 'rechtwettelijk omschreven menschelijke gedraging, onrechtmatig, strafwaarding en aan schuld te wijten'.He further provides an addition to the constituents to indicate that perpetrator should be convicted.The constituents include: Wirjono Projodikoro gives short definition of criminal act.It involves an action of which the perpetrator can be convicted (Soemitro, 1991:42).
From the above formulations, it can be seen that all of the constituents to indicate that a perpetrator should be convicted are combined altogether.In addition, criminal act and criminal responsibility are inseparable.This point of view belongs to the monistic perspective.
In contrast, those who have dualistic perspective seem to separate between criminal act and criminal responsibility.They believe that in case that both are combined, a perpetrator should be convicted.
Pompe theoretically defines criminal act as norm violation (disturbance of legal order) committed with fault by a perpetrator and threatened penalty is therefore required to maintain the legal order and to guarantee public interest.Meanwhile, positive law emphasizes that criminal act is a 'feit' in which the perpetrator can be threatened with penalty based on statutory laws.
The difference between theory and positive law is imperceptible.The most important thing in theory is that nobody can be convicted unless their actions violate law and are committed with fault.Meanwhile, positive law does not recognize fault without the characteristic of 'against the law'.They can be combined considering that green straf zonder schuld (no conviction exists without fault) (Lamintang, 2011 :173).
It can be concluded from the above explanation that it is impossible for a perpetrator to be convicted if 'strafbaarfeit' exists without 'strafbaar persoon' (a person who can be convicted)

B. Criminal sanction
Criminal sanction is, by definition, a penalty or punishment given to a perpetrator as a consequence of the committed criminal act.A perpetrator can be convicted if a fault is found in addition to the criminal act.Fault takes two forms-willful misconduct and negligence.

b. Imprisonment
Imprisonment is a criminal sanction imposed to perpetrators of crime.Its minimum duration is one day, while its maximum duration is 15 years.In certain case, the duration of 15 years can exceed 20 years in case that the act is threatened with death penalty or life imprisonment and there are concursus as well as residivis.Suspended sentence in which a perpetrator does not go to prison can be given.A perpetrator, for example, is sentenced to six months in jail with probation period of a year.During a year, the perpetrator who committed either felony or infraction must be jailed for 6 months besides being responsible for his criminal act.It is possible to release him from jail prior to the expiration of his terms of imprisonment while he is serving a sentence of imprisonment; in other words, a parole is granted when the convict has served the sentence for two third of the terms of imprisonment, or for at least nine months.

c. Incarceration
Incarceration refers to a form of criminal sanctions given to offenders with minimum duration of a day and maximum duration of a year.The maximum duration may exceed a year and four months in case of the presence of concursus and residivis.

d. Fine
A sentence to pay a fine for felony and infraction with minimum amount of 25 cents (one forth rupiah) and no maximum amount in general (the specific maximum amount is stated in each article).Provided that the fine is not paid, a convict must serve a term of incarceration called substituted incarceration.Code may be deprived by judicial verdict involving: 1) The right to serve with the armed forces 2) The right to vote and be voted for in elections 3) The right to be a counselor and to be a guardian, co-guardian, curator, or co-curator 4) The paternal authority, the guardianship and the curatorship over one's own children 5) The right to exercise specific professions b.

Forfeiture of confiscated objects
Objects belonging to the sentenced person, acquired by means of a crime or with which a crime deliberately has been committed, may be forfeited.

c. Publication of the Judicial Judgment
In case that the judge imposes the additional punishments, such media of publication as electronic media, mass media, and notice board should be paid attention to.All expenses are chargeable to the sentenced person.

C. Criminal Justice System
Criminal act is an action which violates a criminal law.The violation of the criminal law leads to imposition of criminal sanction.The imposition is done through criminal justice system.
The Indonesian criminal justice system is regulated in Law Number 8 of 1981 regarding Indonesian Procedural Penal Code.Indonesian Procedural Penal Code is general in a sense that it can be implemented to all of the criminal acts, including a criminal act of traffic accident.
The criminal justice system covers investigation, prosecution, examination by trial, and execution of the sentence.
investigation are conducted by police officers, prosecution by a prosecutor, examination by judges, and execution of the sentence by the prosecutor.The criminal justice system exerts a consequence that perpetrator will be proceeded if he violates the criminal law.Similarly, a criminal act of traffic accident is resolved through a criminal procedure as stipulated in the Law [Article 310 section (2), (3), and (4).Although the article offers an alternative to punishment that is fine.If condition that fine is paid, the perpetrator does not need to serve imprisonment at a correctional facility/ prison (Lembaga Pemasyarakatan).It, however, belongs to a criminal sanction of legal resolution.
In the criminal justice system, an examination is carried out based on the type of case.Ordinary examination procedures are performed to examine ordinary cases, i.e. cases with uneasy vindication.Meanwhile, summary examination procedures are carried out to examine cases with simple vindication, and express examination procedures involve mild cases and mild criminal acts.
The examination of traffic accident cases depends on consequences of the accident.
In case that the accident results in death, ordinary examination procedures can be performed.
Whereas, if the accident causes either severe or mild injuries and material loss, express examination procedures are done.
In addition to legal resolution, if a criminal act is committed, there is a possibility to resolve it through mediation instead of criminal procedure.

D. Mediation
Mediation serves as a form of out-of-court alternative dispute resolution.
Criminal sanction is generally regulated in Article 10 of the INDONESIAN PENAL CODE (Criminal Law Code), which comprises ordinary and additional punishments.Criminal sanctions below are arranged in order, starting from the heaviest to the mildest sanction: Publication of the Judicial JudgmentThe ordinary punishments can be imposed as a criminal sanction without the additional punishments, while the additional punishments follow the ordinary punishments, in other word that it is impossible to impose the additional punishments as a stand alone criminal sanction without involving the ordinary punishments.
229 Yustisia Vol. 6 No. 1 January -April 2017 Model of Criminal Case Resolution ... b.Forfeiture of confiscated objects c.The president will subsequently either accept or deny the clemency by taking the Supreme Court consideration into account.If the clemency is accepted, the perpetrator will have the sentence commuted to life imprisonment or 20-year jail sentence.However, if it is denied, a fiat to carry out an execution will be issued.The implementation of the death penalty is regulated in Law Number 12 of 1964 on the Capital Penalty Procedures by general and military courts.
ConfinementConfinement is a threatened penalty added in Article 10 of the INDONESIAN PENAL CODE in reference to Law Number 20 of 1946.It is sentenced to a perpetrator committed a crime, as consequences in such way that he is convicted and loses his freedom.
Although out-of-court dispute resolution generally emerges in private cases, criminal cases are practically resolved outside a court; not all of the criminal cases is proceeded.Attorney General, as stipulated in Attorney General Regulation, can ignore cases through such institutions as deponering (the official halt of a criminal case) and afkoop (redemption) and drop the cases if maximum amount of fine has been paid.Noumber 22 of 2009, traffic accident is classified as a criminal act, and therefore is resolved through criminal justice system.The case study below would be an example of a traffic accident causing death in territory jurisdiction of DIY (The Special Region of Yogyakarta) Police Department, specifically in Sleman.Eko Rismanto, son of Supardi, committed traffic violation causing a traffic accident on Jalan Raya Kebon Agung of Minggir of Sendang Agung subdistrict of Sleman regency between a dump truck and a roadster bicycle (sepeda onthel) to happen.The traffic accident killed Wagimun, the roadster bicycle rider.In this case, several measures are carried out: i.Police officers did not arrest the perpetrator.Daily mandatory reporting is required, ii.Police officers seized a physical evidence of a dump truck, iii.Police officers issued a notice iv.Victim's visum et repertum is issued (alternatively translated as 'seen and discovered') v. Witness information is gathered By referring to data collected by police officers, the suspect was proven guilty due to his carelessness/ negligence/ neglect which caused a bicycle rider to die, as regulated in Article 310 section (4) juncto 106 section (2) of Law Number 22 of 2009.After a record of the examination had been made, the case was handed over Public Prosecutor of Sleman and a bill of charges was submitted to Sleman district court.Clearly, for a traffic accident causing death committed with negligence, a record of ordinary examination is made, and the perpetrator is imposed by Article 310 of section (4) of Law Number 22 of 2009.Police officers do not carry out mediation as if there is no legal framework on resolution of traffic accident causing death with mediation, but rather with criminal justice system.The following data below shows the number of traffic accidents in DIY Police Department during 2009-2013.
regarding Procedures for Handling Traffic Accident, traffic accident case falls into three categories, namely mild accident, moderate accident, and severe accident.The former results in vehicle and/or property damage, the middle in mild injury and vehicle and/or property damage, while the latter in severe injury or death.Model of Criminal Case Resolution ...Source: Traffic Directorate of DIY Police DepartmentAccordingin to the table, the highest rate of traffic accident occurred in 2010.The number of died victims indicates an increase year after year, while the number of victims with