An Analysis of the Theory of Justice against the Standard of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt in the Judge's Decision in the Jessica Kumala Wongso Case

Abstract

This research aims to find out the theory of justice that can be used by judges in proving criminal cases in Indonesia and the use of the theory of justice in the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in the judge's decision in the Jessica Kumala Wongso case. This research uses normative legal research methods with legal philosophy, legislation and conceptual approaches. The data source used is secondary data consisting of primary legal materials and secondary legal materials analyzed qualitatively with deductive inference, starting with general principles and concepts about the theory of justice and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the analysis moves towards specific propositions to determine the value of justice and the relevance of this standard in the judge's decision in the Jessica Kumala Wongso case. The study found that Gustav Radbruch's theory of justice can be applied by judges in Indonesian criminal cases, using six evidentiary parameters: theory of evidence, minimum evidence, evidence, presentation of evidence, burden of proof, and strength of proof. These parameters reflect Radbruch's legal values of justice, purpose, and legal certainty. Judges using Radbruch's theory prioritize justice, followed by purpose and legal certainty. In Jessica's case, despite doubts about the evidence, the judges found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, aligning with Radbruch's principle that justice should take precedence in the standard of proof.