| dc.description.abstract | Assault is one of the most common crimes occurring in society and often
creates complex legal issues. In practice, perpetrators frequently claim that their
actions were carried out as a form of self-defense (noodweer). However, debates
often arise as to whether such acts truly fulfill the elements of noodweer or
instead constitute vigilantism (eigenrichting). This is evident in Decision No.
34/Pid.B/2021/PN Bhn, where, according to the facts, the defendant acted in self
defense against an assault, yet the court still imposed a criminal sentence. This
situation reflects differing interpretations of noodweer as a ground for exclusion
of criminal liability in Indonesian criminal law.
This research, entitled “Juridical Analysis of Self-Defense (Noodweer) in
Assault Cases: A Study of Decision No. 34/Pid.B/2021/PN Bhn”, aims to examine
the legal regulation of noodweer in Indonesian criminal law, to analyze its
elements and distinguish it from eigenrichting and noodweer excess, and to assess
the judicial considerations in the aforementioned decision. The study employs a
normative legal research method, using statutory and case approaches, with data
collected from literature studies and analyzed qualitatively.
The findings indicate that noodweer is regulated under Article 49(1) of the
Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP) and Article 34 of Law No. 1 of 2023 as a
ground of justification, while noodweer excess constitutes a ground of excuse. The
fundamental distinction from vigilantism lies in legality and proportionality. In the
examined case, the panel of judges concluded that the requirements of noodweer
were not met, resulting in a conviction despite the defendant’s actions being a
reaction to an assault. The study concludes that inconsistencies remain in the
judicial application of noodweer, highlighting the need for a deeper
understanding of legitimate self-defense criteria to ensure consistent judicial
reasoning. | en_US |
