IMPLEMENTATION OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS FOR PROSPECTION OF NEWSPAPERS REVIEWED FROM THE BOOK OF CRIMINAL LAW

Article Info Abstrak Received : 05/02/2021 Approved: 02/04/2021 DOI: 10.24815/sklj.v5i1.19859 The practical purpose of writing this journal is to find out whether the act of spreading newspaper news can be accounted for by its actions in terms of the Criminal Code. In this case it is not appropriate to be charged article 310 of the Criminal Code because the core of article 310 of the Criminal Code is that the product used to defame must be made by the person himself while the news from the newspaper is not a homemade result. If seen in Article 311 of the Criminal Code concerning criminal acts of defamation, the element is fulfilled.


I. INTRODUCTION
It cannot be denied that freedom of expression is one of the most important fundamental rights to be guaranteed in a constitutional state that is democratic and upholds the principles of human rights. Without a strong guarantee of freedom of expression, it is certain that there will be traffic barriers to the exchange of ideas and ideas and closed public access to information. One of the significant problems in the issue of freedom of expression is the problem of using criminal provisions related to defamation. The development of criminal provisions related to defamation that was born through various sectoral laws has resulted in the reduplication of existing criminal acts of defamation.
In addition, the regulated norms are vague so that in their application there is a high tendency for abuse of authority and discriminatory attitudes. In the Criminal Code, insults are generally regulated in Chapter XVI and grouped into 7 sections, namely insulting, slander, insulting civil servants, slander complaints, false suspicions, and defamation of the dead.
Van Hattum stated that a criminal act is an event that causes a person to be convicted. In Van Hattum's formulation what is stated is not the act but the person. According to Moeljatno the difference arises because the word strafbaar (punishable) is officially used as the word feit (action or Syiah Kuala Law Journal : Vol. 5(1) April 2021 Steven Johan 2 event) as well as against the person who does it. This is confusing, because strafbaar is actually the person, while his actions cannot be punished but can only be prohibited. Moeljatno

II. RESEARCH METHODS
The type of research used is normative juridical legal research, which is literature research, namely research on primary and secondary legal materials, consisting of statutory regulations and literature. The approach to the problem used in this study is a statute approach and a conceptual approach. The statute approach is an approach that is carried out by reviewing all laws and regulations from regulations related to the legal issues at hand. 3 Meanwhile, the conceptual approach is an approach that departs from the views and doctrines that develop in the science of law. 4

III. RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION RESULTS
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali, which means that there is no act that can be punished, except based on criminal provisions according to the existing law rather than the act itself. Before entering into the description of criminal acts in related cases, the legality principle above states that a criminal act must be committed after the criminal provisions governing the related action.
In this regard, based on the chronology of the case above, the emphasis of the problem was on the The measure of an act that can be categorized as defamation of another person is still unclear because there are many factors that must be studied. In the case of defamation or insult to protect, it is the duty of every person to respect others from the point of view of his honor and good name in the eyes of others.
In a book published by Mudzakir, he argues: There is a relationship between honor and good name in the case of defamation, so it can be seen first the meaning of each. Honor is a person's feeling of honor in the eyes of society, where everyone has the right to be treated as an honorable member of society. To attack honor means to do something according to the general judgment of attacking one's honor. This sense of honor must be objectified in such a way and must be judged by a certain action, someone in general will feel offended or not. It can also be said that a very young child cannot feel this offense, and that a lunatic cannot be offended. Thus, there is no criminal act of insulting both types of people.
A good name is a good judgment according to the general perception of a person's behavior or personality from a moral point of view. A person's good name is always seen from the other person's point of view, namely good morals or personality, so that the measure is determined based on general judgments in a particular society where the action is committed and the context of the action.
Defamation is also known as insult, which is basically attacking the good name and honor of someone who is not in a sexual sense so that the person feels wronged. This defamation or insult is regulated in articles 310-321 of the Criminal Code. Honor and good name have different meanings, but they cannot be separated from one another, because attacking honor will result in tarnished honor and good name, as well as attacking a good name will result in one's good name and honor can be tainted. Therefore, attacking either honor or good name is sufficient reason to accuse someone of insulting someone.
Oemar Seno Adji defines defamation as either attacking honor or good name (aanranding of geode naam). One form of defamation is "defamation in writing and is done by accusing something of something". 6 There are 2 kinds of defamation, namely verbal defamation and written defamation. In his book Oemar Seno Adji states that defamation is known as insult, which is divided into the following: a. Material humiliation Insult which consists of a fact which includes an objective statement in words orally or in writing, then the determining factor is the content of the statement, both written and oral. It is still possible to prove that the allegations were made in the public interest. Anyone who deliberately attacks a person's honor or reputation, accusing something, which he means clearly so that it becomes public knowledge, is threatened with defamation, with a maximum imprisonment of nine months or a maximum fine of three hundred rupiahs.
Many experts use the term "offensive". The word "insult" comes from the word "disgrace".
Some scholars use the word "reproach". The difference in terms is due to the use of words in translating the word "smaad" from Dutch. The word "insult" and the word "reproach" are synonymous words. 9 In accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Code which is generally defined: "an act that is detrimental to a person's good name and honor." 10 The elements of Article 310 paragraph (1)  In this case the act committed by the defendant by distributing photocopies containing news from a newspaper which defamed HD was an act committed so that the news could be known by the public or the public even though without the actions of Defendant I and Defendant II the news had already been reported. spread because the news was a press product that was sold to the public and could be purchased by anyone and anywhere so that the actions of Defendant I and Defendant II were not considered acts with the real intention of making the accusation public.

Ad b. Purposely
With purpose here it can be proven that the acts committed by Defendant I and Defendant II were carried out consciously and with the knowledge of Defendant I and Defendant II themselves.

Article 310 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code regarding written pollution;
If this is done in writing or a picture that is broadcast, displayed or posted in public, then the guilty, because of defamation in writing, will be punished by a maximum imprisonment of one year and four months or a maximum fine of three hundred rupiahs.
The term "insult in writing" by some experts is used by the term "insult in writing". The difference is due to the choice of words to translate, namely the smaadschrift word which can be translated with the same or nearly simultaneous words.
Based on the above formula, insulting and insulting by writing have the same elements, the

R. Soesilo in his book entitled The Criminal Code (KUHP) and his Complete Comments
Article by Article in the explanation of Article 310 of the Criminal Code, explains that, "insulting" is "attacking the honor and good name of a person". Those who are attacked usually feel "ashamed".
The "honor" that is attacked here is only about the honor of "good name", not "honor" in the sexual field, the honor that can be defiled by offending his genitals in an environment of sexual lust. 11 This sense of honor must be objectified in such a way and must be judged by a certain action, someone in general will feel offended or not. It can also be said that a very young child cannot feel this offense, and that a very mad person cannot feel this offense. Thus, there is no criminal act of insulting both types of people. 12 By looking at the explanation of these elements, the actions committed by Defendant I and Defendant II that were reported by HD and finally decided were inaccurate, because to be subject to Article 310 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code, the act must comply with Article 310 paragraph ( 1) the Criminal Code first. Meanwhile, the act did not fulfill one of the elements of Article 310 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, namely the element of "accusing something of something", so that it can be said that accused of this, Defendant I and Defendant II must be the people who make articles or news about defamation or an insult to HD itself, even though it was the press that produced the news or article from the Harian Terbit. If you look at article 311 of the Criminal Code which reads: "If the person who commits the crime of defamation or defamation is allowed to prove what is alleged to be true, does not prove it, and the charges are against what is known, then he will be threatened with slander with a maximum imprisonment of four years." The elements of Article 311 paragraph (1)  Ad a. Someone.
A person here is defined as a subject of criminal law consisting of individuals and corporations. In the above case, the said act includes an individual which means that he is included as a subject of criminal law.

Ad b. Insulting others both verbally and in writing.
The act that is done must be insulting or slander, which means that the news or information disseminated is something that is not true. In distributing the results of news clippings to others, the defendants did not know the truth about the news and it caused the victim's honor to be attacked and harmed the victim.
Ad c. The person who accuses him cannot prove his accusation and if the accusation is found to be untrue.
The defendant in the trial could not prove that the results of the news clippings were the truth and the act had been committed by the victim because the press could not prove whether or not an immoral act had occurred. Apart from the defendants who could be prosecuted by HD, they were the producers of the news or newspaper articles, namely the press from the Terbit Daily.
Because to see whether someone is involved in defamation or not, it must be seen from who made the news because the problems seen in the case used or other defamation problems are the object of the defamation act. The object is a newspaper report made by journalists from a press company called Harian Terbit. If we look at law number 40 of 1999 on the press: c) Article 5 paragraph (2): the press is obliged to serve the Right of Reply d) article 5 paragraph (3): the press is obliged to serve the right of correction So that if there is an error in the news made by the press and the party who feels aggrieved must protest against the press first, then the press must exercise the Right to Reply and the Right to Correction because this is also in the code of ethics for Indonesian journalists which must be immediately revoked and rectify mistakes in reporting and serving the right of reply and also accompanied by an apology but if there is a criminal element in this case, those who feel aggrieved can report the case to the police and in its resolution use Law number 40 of 1999 concerning the press because the object of the problem is press product.
But if you look at the slander that you see is whether the person who committed the slander can prove the accusation directed at another person, if the accusation can be proven true, it does not include slander but if it cannot be proven then the accusing act is considered slander. The accusation committed in the case I used cannot be verified by the person who caused the newspaper clipping.
Therefore, it is more precise that the act committed by the defendants was a defamation as regulated in Article 311 of the Criminal Code rather than an act of defamation as regulated in Article 310 of the Criminal Code.
In criminal law it is known as criminal liability. The element of criminal responsibility is very important in criminal law because it is to determine whether a suspect or defendant can be subject to criminal sanctions or not. Sianturi stated, criminal responsibility, namely: In foreign languages, criminal responsibility is referred to as "toerekenbaarheid", "criminal responsibility", "criminal liability". It has been stated that criminal liability is meant to determine whether a suspect / defendant is responsible for a crime that occurs or not. In other words whether the defendant will be convicted or released. If he is convicted, it must be evident that the act committed was against the law or that the defendant was able to take responsibility. This ability shows errors Syiah Kuala Law Journal : Vol. 5(1) April 2021 Steven Johan 10 from the act in the form of intentional or negligent. This means that the action was despicable and the accused was aware of the action being carried out. 14 According to Sudarto "it is not enough to convict someone if that person has committed an act that is against the law or is against the law. So even though the act fulfills the statutory offense formulation and is not justified, it does not yet fulfill the requirements for imposing a sentence. For conviction there is still a need for the imposition of a sentence, that is, the person who commits the act is guilty or guilty ". 15 The defendants can also carry out criminal responsibility because the elements of guilt have all been fulfilled. The elements of error are divided into: a) There is an act against the law (criminal act), b) Able to be responsible, c) Has one form of error, namely deliberately (dolus) or negligence (culpa), d) There must be no excuses. 16 Ad a. There is an act against the law (a criminal act) The actions committed by the defendants were illegal because the actions committed by the defendants violated the Criminal Code so that the elements of the guilt had been fulfilled.
Ad b. Be able to be responsible The defendants were not persons who were under interdiction or were mentally ill or mentally disabled so that the defendants were able to take responsibility for the actions they had committed.
Ad c. Has one form of error, namely deliberately (dolus) or negligence (culpa) In committing the criminal act the defendants did it deliberately and understood what the defendants were doing.

Ad d. There must be no excuses
There is no excuse for all acts which fall under the realm of criminal defamation.

IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the discussion and description in the previous chapters, it can be concluded that the acts committed by Defendant I and Defendant II regarding defamation cannot be justified, but still responsible for the criminal act of defamation because: The actions of Defendant I and Defendant II did not fulfill the elements of Article 310 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code, to fulfill the elements of Article 310 paragraph (2) of the