Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Disabilitas Mental: Studi Perbandingan Hukum Indonesia, Jepang, dan Kanada
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31849/2gtkgm44Keywords:
Criminal Liability, Mental Disability, Legal Comparison, Rehabilitation, Legal CertaintyAbstract
Legal uncertainty in the application of Article 44 of the Criminal Code against perpetrators of criminal acts with mental disabilities in Indonesia, which often leads to disparity of decisions. The research method used is juridical normative approach to comparative law between Indonesia, Japan, and Canada. The results showed that in contrast to Indonesia, which does not yet have a strong post-verdict supervision mechanism, Japan through the Medical Treatment and Supervision Act (MTSA) and Canada through the Review Board system have integrated medical and legal assessments systematically. The discussion revealed that the absence of standardized forensic psychiatric evaluation standards in Indonesia resulted in a waiver of rehabilitation rights for perpetrators. In conclusion, Indonesia needs regulatory reform that adopts an integrated surveillance model and the construction of forensic mental health facilities to ensure legal certainty and community safety. This comparative study recommends the establishment of a special authority institution to supervise the process of treating mentally disabled offenders so as not to re-commit criminal acts.
References
Amrani, H., & Ali, M. (2015). Sistem Pertanggung Jawaban Pidana. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Ando, K., et al. (2025). Overview of forensic outpatients on the Medical Treatment and Supervision Act in Japan. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 100.
Arief, B. N. (2020). Perbandingan Hukum Pidana. Depok: Rajawali Pers.
Carver, P., & Langlois-Klassen, C. (2006). The role and powers of forensic psychiatric Review Boards in Canada: Recent developments. Health Law Journal, 14.
Constanzo, M. (2006). Aplikasi Psikologi Dalam Sistem Hukum. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Crocker, A. G., et al. (2015). The national trajectory project of individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in Canada. Can. J. Psychiatry.
Diantha, I. M. P. (2016). Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif Dalam Justifikasi Teori Hukum. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group.
Efendi, J., & Ibrahim, J. (2020). Metode Penelitian Hukum Normatif Dan Empiris. Jakarta: Kencana.
Haag, A. M., et al. (2016). Describing the not criminally responsible population in Alberta’s history. Journal of Community Safety & Well-Being, 1.
Hamdan, M. (2012). Alasan Penghapus Pidana Teori dan Studi Kasus. Bandung: Refika Aditama.
Hiariej, E. O. S., & Santoso, T. (2025). Anotasi KUHP Nasional. Depok: Rajawali Pers.
Huda, C. (2011). Dari Tiada Pidana Tanpa Kesalahan Menuju Kepada Tiada Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Tanpa Kesalahan. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Ibrahim, J. (2006). Teori dan Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Malang: Bayu Publishing.
Kanter, E. Y., & Sianturi, S. R. (2002). Asas-asas Hukum Pidana di Indonesia dan Penerapannya. Jakarta: Storia Grafika.
Kholiq, M. A. (2002). Buku Pedoman Kuliah Hukum Pidana. Yogyakarta: Fakultas Hukum UII.
Lacroix, R. (2017). [Studi mengenai prinsip least restrictive alternative di Kanada].
Lamintang, P. A. F. (1997). Dasar-Dasar Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.
Lukito, R. (2016). Perbandingan Hukum: Perdebatan Teori dan Metode. Yogyakarta: UGM Press.
Lukito, R. (2022). Compare But Not to Compare: Kajian Perbandingan Hukum di Indonesia. Undang: Jurnal Hukum, 5(2).
Math, S. B., et al. (2015). Insanity Defense: Past, Present, and Future. Indian J. Psychol. Med.
Moeljatno. (2008). Asas-asas Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Nakatani, Y. (2020). Criminal Responsibility of Offenders with Psychiatric Disorders. Psychiatria et Neurologia Japonica, 122(2).
Nuhriawangsa, I. (2004). Psikiatri Forensik (Psikiatri dalam Peradilan). Surakarta: Fakultas Kedokteran UNS.
Okada, T. (2020). The Forensic Mental Health System and Psychopaths in Japan. The Wiley International Handbook on Psychopathic Disorders and the Law.
O'Reilly, R. L., & Gray, J. E. (2014). Canada’s mental health legislation. Int. Psychiatry.
Pellerin, J. C., et al. (2024). Factors Considered for the Assessment of Risk in Administrative Review Boards Of Canada. Forensic Sciences, 4(4).
Prodjodikoro, W. (1986). Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Bandung: PT Eresko.
Reza, A. A. (2015). Pertanggungjawaban Korporasi dalam Rancangan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: ICJR.
Shohet. (2023). Pemidanaan Terhadap Pelaku Kejahatan Yang Mengalami Gangguan Kejiwaan Dalam Sistem Hukum Pidana (Disertasi). Bandung: Universitas Pasundan.
Sholehuddin, M. (2003). Sistem Sanksi dalam Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Sriyanto, I. (1993). Asas Tiada Kesalahan dalam Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Dengan Penyimpangan. Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan, 23(2).
Suyanto, H. (2018). Pengantar Hukum Pidana. Yogyakarta: Deepublish.
Verdun-Jones, S. (2007). Criminal law in Canada: Cases, questions, and the code. Toronto: Thomson Canada Limited.
Widnyana, I. M. (2010). Asas-asas Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Fikahati Aneska.
