LIVE | SIT IN - ToF Implementasi KUHP & KUHAP Angkatan XVI–XVII TA 2026 | BPSDM Hukum

Lifestyle / “Quiet Morning” Routine (Mood-Setting, Non-Instructional)

• Slow down your start to the day

  • Take quiet, unhurried steps.
  • Keep your phone face down; let messages wait (avoid rushing to reply).
  • Let coffee cool before drinking; let thoughts settle.
  • Read slowly (even re-reading the same line multiple times) and stay present.

• Engage the senses as an anchor

  • Notice steam from a cup, sunlight on the floor, chair creaks, window chill, and small ambient sounds.

• Manage clutter / mental load

  • Put your list aside “for a while” and rise when ready.
  • Place keys in a bowl/near the door; set items down carefully (cup, keys, bag, pages) to reduce urgency.

• Do small acts of mindfulness while working on a page

  • Trace table grain, count bubbles in cream, watch dust in sunlight, and let the day unfold.

• Sleep/offline boundaries

  • Keep screens and notifications low; stay “offline” during the quiet window.

---

Seminar/Training Content: KUHP & KUHAP (Criminal Code & Criminal Procedure Code) Highlights

Key themes are presented as lecture-style explanations with Q&A. Some details may be mistranscribed due to auto-caption errors.

1) Retributive Punishment vs Newer Goals (Rationale of the KUHP Paradigm)

• The “prison-first / retributive-retribution” view should be abandoned.
• Alternatives should be explored:
  • Reduce prison overcrowding by changing rules and applying alternatives.
  • Use conflict-resolution approaches without punishment when appropriate.
  • Recognize different treatment across adults vs children vs corporations.
• New priorities emphasized:
  • Recovery for victims and for perpetrators (restorative intent).
  • If there are no victims, focus may shift toward community security and restoring normalcy.
• “Living law” concept
  • Laws can develop in society even if not yet regulated in KUHP; regional rules may later formalize them.
  • Example mentioned: Kampung Ambon (West Jakarta) related to narcotics being treated differently within local practice (as described in subtitles).

2) Living Law (Hukum yang Hidup) and Regional Regulation Mechanics

• The principle of legality is maintained, but living law in society is recognized.
• Living law criteria (as described):
  • Exists where it “lives” (in the community).
  • Not already regulated in KUHP/KUHAP.
  • Must align with:
    • Pancasila
    • 1945 Constitution
    • human rights
    • generally recognized legal principles
• Living law is strengthened via:
  • Regional regulations, preceded by empirical research.
• Regional regulation should not revive old customs unchanged; it should be validated through research and participation.
• Sanctions in customary crimes:
  • Examples given include Toraja “striped tedong” (buffalo) as a customary compensation/sanction model, but the lecture indicates it will be limited/converted into regulated sanction categories (as described).

3) Prison Dominance Problem & New Sentencing Approach

• Why prison sentences dominate:
  • Overcrowding and social disruption.
  • High direct and indirect economic costs.
  • Limits rehabilitation effectiveness.
• CAP (KUHP) aims to provide more alternatives due to current conditions (a number around ~272,500 prison population is mentioned in subtitles).

4) Purpose of Punishment and “Corrective/Restorative” Direction

• Objectives described for sentencing include:
  • Preventive aims
  • Correctional/rehabilitation goals
  • Conflict resolution / restoration of balance
  • Recovery and community peace
  • Creating security
  • Encouraging remorse in the convict
• Rehabilitation framing:
  • Offenders compared to being “sick” (medical-science framing).
  • Potentially use indeterminate/conditional assessments (severity changing based on risk/tendency to reoffend).

5) Guidelines for Reducing Prison / Alternative Penalties

• Subtitles repeatedly list criteria judges should consider to avoid imposing prison where possible (wording may vary):
  • Defendant is a child
  • Defendant is over 75 years old
  • First-time offender
  • Victim impact is not too severe
  • Defendant has compensated/paid restitution
  • Defendant was not aware the actions would cause huge losses
  • Crime occurred due to strong incitement/pressure from others
  • Victim contribution to the crime’s occurrence (as described)
• Also noted:
  • This approach does not apply to all crimes; exceptions exist (e.g., serious crimes excluded—narcotics, corruption, terrorism, etc. are referenced).
  • (Some threshold language appears in captions but may be unclear.)

6) Criminal Supervision, Community Service, and Fines as Alternatives

• Community service / social work

  • Can replace prison under certain conditions (as described).
  • Considerations include:
    • confession
    • ability and consent after explanation
    • social history
    • safety of placement
    • religion/beliefs/politics
    • ability to pay

• Criminal supervision (probation-like concept)

  • If a violation occurs, consequences connect to possible imprisonment up to a limit mentioned around 5 years maximum.

• Fines

  • Fines shift from fixed amounts per article to category-based fines.
  • Guidelines include:
    • judge must consider defendant’s earning/spending capacity
    • installment payment possible
    • payment deadline rules
    • if unpaid, assets may be confiscated/auctioned to pay the fine
    • inability to replace with imprisonment/supervision/community service within certain fine categories (as described in subtitles)

7) Forgiveness / “Judicial Forgiveness” (Asas / Rerlik Pardon)

• Judges are said to have authority to forgive a defendant in “light” circumstances:
  • forgiveness can be included as part of a court decision
  • it still requires the defendant to be proven to have committed a crime
• Subtitles reference updates and alignment with a new criminal procedure framework (an upcoming “new Criminal Procedure Code” article and Supreme Court regulation are referenced, though numbers are unclear).

8) Retributive Concepts Explained (Core Principles)

A lecture segment defines the retributive view with points:

• Criminal responsibility: evil deeds must have consequences (punishment by the state).
• Punitive justice: every crime must be repaid (“do the crime, pay the fine” style explanation).
• Proportionality: punishment should match the crime and its consequences.
• Backward-looking justice: focuses on what was done (not future benefits).
• Corrective justice principle discussed in relation to restorative aims.
• Includes:
  • prohibition against punishing the innocent / “judicial forgiveness” as a mechanism of forgiveness under specified conditions.

9) Human Rights Constraints

• Criminalization must not intend to demean human dignity.
• “Torture” is discussed as conduct intentionally causing physical and non-physical pain by state officials; it is treated as a key concept in the framework.

10) Mental Disability Handling (ODGJ) and Trial Competence

• Subtitles cover “reduction/exception” concepts:
  • Article 38/39 are referenced as separating:
    • reduction/adjustment when mental disability is present at the time of the act
    • inability to be punished when conditions are present (acute relapse/psychotic symptoms/moderate-severe intellectual disability), but action/care can be ordered (institutional care / mental hospital).
• Practical concern discussed:
  • whether police/prosecutors should assess mental disability or whether judge determination is required.
• Mentions of professional involvement:
  • psychiatric/psychology/social worker involvement
  • restorative/penal mediation may depend on professional expert roles.

11) Children in Conflict with Law (Diversion and Protections)

• Subtitles emphasize:
  • diversion/resolution mechanisms and special handling for children
  • cases where sentencing still went to prison contrary to intended diversion
• SPPA (child justice system) described as needing consistency and updates; some claim it is “outdated,” while others argue key provisions remain in use.

12) Living Law in Multicultural Settings and Practical Concerns

• Example: dispute resolution based on local customary processes (e.g., Batak customs described in East Jakarta) and how it may intersect with SPPA/SPPA updates, jurisdiction, and restorative aims.
• Issue raised:
  • living law differs across regions; Jakarta’s multicultural context complicates applying a single customary rule.

---

Notable Locations, Products, and Named Entities (from the Subtitles)

Locations

• West Jakarta (Kampung Ambon mentioned)
• Jember (pigeon racing referenced)
• Bali (sabung ayam / cockfighting referenced)
• Garut (dombrut tahu / Garut sheep referenced)
• Toraja (custom sanction via striped tedong/buffalo referenced)
• Aceh (sharia / jinayat discussion referenced)
• Papua (duels/customary practices referenced)
• East Java, Bali, Jakarta, Sumatra, Kalimantan (various customary law discussions)

Programs / Institutions

• BPSDM Hukum (organizer referenced via video title)
• BAPAS (Balai Pemasyarakatan) — West Jakarta, South Jakarta, East Jakarta (mentioned)
• Ministry of Social Affairs (Minso*s)
• KPK / Corruption Eradication Committee (viewpoint referenced)
• Witness and Victim Protection Agency (agency role referenced)

Speakers / Names Referenced

• Prof. Markus Priogunarto (main lecturer in later sessions)
• Other names appearing in subtitles (some may be mistranscribed): Marlas, Mara(s), Nanda, Aisyah, Renata, Bella, Maryam, Ranto, Fatimah, Zulfikri, Krishna, etc.

Laws / Policies Mentioned

• KUHP (Criminal Code), KUHAP (Criminal Procedure Code)
• SPPA (child justice system), Law No. 11/2012 (implied), discussion of SPPA being “outdated” vs not
• PP No. 55 of 2025 (referenced for living law implementation)
• Law No. 20 of 2025 and references to new procedural provisions (numbers/accuracy uncertain due to caption errors)