Analisis Peraturan Mahkamah Agung No. 02 Tahun 2012 pada Tahap Penyidikan di Kepolisian terhadap Tindak Pidana Pencurian dengan Pemberatan (Studi di Wilayah Hukum Polres Langkat)

Abstract

Efforts and policies to create a good rule of criminal law in essence can not be separated from The purpose of crime prevention. Likewise regulations issued by the Supreme Court regarding the misdemeanor (Tipiring), namely: the Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2012 on Limitation Adjustment light crime and the amount of penalties in the Criminal Code. Related to this research that addresses the crime of theft by weighting, then the crime of theft under$ value. 2.500.000, - (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand) can not be detained. The background to the Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 In 2012, the efforts to provide justice to the people, especially in settling disputes-minor criminal cases (Tipiring). Technically law called the Tipiring is a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment or a maximum of three months imprisonment and or a fine of up to Rp. 7.500, - (Seven Thousand Five Hundred Rupiah) and a mild insult. Therefore, the substance, the Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2012 was actually not on the value of rupiah, but the crimes are legal threat than 3 (three) months and it is not required to be retained. In the Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 In 2012, Article 1, explained that the words Rp. 250, - (Two Hundred and Fifty Rupiah) in Article 364, 373, 379, 384, 407 and 482 of the Penal Code read as Rp. 2.500.000, - (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand). Later, in Article 2 paragraph (2) and (3) is described, if the value of the goods or the money is not worth more than 2.5 million dollars President of the Court immediately set the Single Judge to examine, hear and decide the case with the Fast Interrogation under Article 205-210 Criminal Procedure Code and the President of the Court do not provide for the detention or extension of detention. This research is legal normative descriptive analysis. Using the method of data collection by the research literature that collect data derived from books, legislation, scientific journals, and magazines related to Perma No. 02 2012. Interviews were also conducted to obtain secondary data. Source data using secondary data consists of primary legal materials, secondary law, and tertiary legal materials. Then analyzed using qualitative analysis method, abstractive, interpretive. The results showed that: Perma No. 02 of2012 was very influential to the Police Investigator perma because although they do not apply to the police, however, due to the integrated criminal justice system adheres to the criminal justice system, the police as an estuary of any investigations and inquiries both theft and theft by weighting the perma biasaharus forward. Instead, the government put pressure on the Parliament to pass the bill Penal Code/The new Criminal Procedure Code in order to become law; The obstacles faced by investigators Satreskrim langkat Police in conducting an investigation into the crime of theft by weighting associated with Penna No. 02 o/2012, namely: a. Perma No. 02 of 2012 can not be categorized as legislation, however, the perma binding under Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Laws and Regulations; b. Limitations of personnel, budget, and the ability Investigator Police Satreskrim langkat in conducting investigations and inquiries; c. Police have happened stigamatisasi to langkat; d. Police investigators Satreskrim langkat not have the same perception on the perma. Preferably, conducted a review of the Criminal Code Perma and pass the bill I new Criminal Procedure Code; add personnel, budget and increase the ability of investigators; provide education and socialization of the Criminal Code draft I new Criminal Procedure Code to the public.