Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Pelaku Pengelolaan Limbah B3 Medis Tanpa Izin (Studi Putusan Nomor 115/Pid.B/LH/2019/PN Slt dan Studi Putusan Nomor 1/PID.B/LH/2020/PT Smg )

Abstract

Criminal liability refers to the perpetrator with the intention of determining whether the accused or suspect can be held responsible for a crime that has occurred. Solid Medical B3 Waste is leftover goods or materials resulting from activities that are not reused which have the potential to be contaminated with infectious substances. The Indonesian Ombudsman in 2021 noted that there were at least 138 million tons of medical waste that were not managed properly, so it is necessary to deal with the management of medical B3 waste in Indonesia. This research uses normative juridical law research because it wants to examine statutory regulations and judge's decisions regarding the management of B3 waste without a permit. The approaches in this thesis research are the statutory approach, the case approach and the analytical approach. The legal approach is carried out by examining all laws and regulations related to this thesis research. The case approach is carried out by examining cases in Decision Number 115/Pid.B/LH/2019/PN Slt and Decision Number 1/Pid.B/LH/2020/PT Smg which have permanent legal force. The data sources used are primary, secondary and tertiary data. The data analysis method used is qualitative data analysis, as a result of data collection through primary, secondary and tertiary data. From primary, secondary and tertiary data analysis is carried out to draw conclusions, which are associated with theories, concepts that have relevance to answer the questions in the formulation of the problem. The conclusions in the research show that in Decision Number 115/Pid.B/LH/2019/PN Slt and Decision Number 1/Pid.B/LH/2020/PT Smg it is stated that the criminal responsibility of the perpetrators of medical B3 waste management at Salatiga Hospital is not precisely related to application of the law, this is because the Judge in deciding this case did not pay attention to the changes in the rules regarding the article charged with having been deleted by the Job Creation Law before the judge made a decision. The accused should have been acquitted of the criminal charge he was charged with.