Juridical Review of Obstacles to The Implementation of Restorative Justice in The Crime of Theft

Abstract

This study aims to determine the role of the public prosecutor in the application of PERJA Number 15 of 2020 concerning Termination of Prosecution Based on Restorative Justice against criminal cases of theft and to determine the role of the prosecutor in the future in implementing Restorative Justice against criminal acts of theft whose losses have been recovered exceeding Rp 2,500,000,- (Two Million Five Hundred Thousand). This type of research is empirical juridical legal research, where the data is obtained from the field and described following the actual reality. The results of the study show that (1) cases that were settled based on PERJA Number 15 of 2020 concerning Termination of Prosecution Based on Restorative Justice must prioritize a peace agreement between the two parties by taking into account three main elements, namely the suspect is the first time to commit a crime, a crime only threatened with imprisonment of not more than 5 (five) years, and the loss of a crime not more than Rp 2,500,000,- (two million five hundred thousand rupiah). (2) The Public Prosecutor is considered to be too rigid in interpreting the phrase in Article 5 paragraph (1) letter c in which the loss of a criminal act cannot be more than Rp 2,500,000,- (two million five hundred thousand rupiah), even though there has been an agreement peace between the two parties, and the victim's losses have been restored to their original state, with an additional Rp 12,000,000,- (twelve million rupiahs). The application of Restorative Justice by the Public Prosecutor is not always fixed on the nominal limit according to the PERMA of Rp 2,500,000- (two million five hundred thousand rupiah) to realize the original condition, which is intended so that the victim who initially felt aggrieved due to the suspect's actions feels restored to his condition so that a peace agreement can be created between the victim and the perpetrator.