Errors That Can Be Tolerated in Criminal Court Decisions Using A Doctrinal Approach Harmless Error in Order to Carry Out The Principles of Justice
Abstract
A fair criminal trial is a fundamental pillar of the justice system, ensuring that substantive justice prevails over mere procedural correctness. This article explores the essential elements of criminal verdicts, particularly legal considerations and judicial rulings, as outlined in Article 197 of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). It further analyzes judicial errors through the doctrinal approach of harmless error. In judicial practice, errors in a judge's decision can be categorized into substantial (harmful error) and non-substantial (harmless error). Substantial errors directly affect the defendant’s rights or compromise the integrity of the trial, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice. In contrast, non-substantial errors are procedural or administrative in nature, meaning they do not significantly impact substantive justice or alter the final outcome of the case. The harmless error doctrine, originating from common law jurisdictions, has been adopted in various legal systems, including Indonesia, to balance trial efficiency with the pursuit of material truth. This doctrine prevents the unnecessary annulment of verdicts due to minor, non-prejudicial errors that do not affect the essence of justice. By recognizing the distinction between procedural irregularities and substantive violations, courts can uphold fair trials while minimizing delays caused by technical challenges. This research underscores the necessity of a criminal justice system that is simple, swift, and cost-effective, in line with the principles of justice in Indonesia. An efficient legal framework that embraces the harmless error doctrine ensures that the judicial process remains fair without being unnecessarily rigid. Ultimately, the legal system must remain justice-oriented, prioritizing substantive fairness over procedural perfection to uphold the rule of law and protect individual rights.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Aryani, F. D. (2024). The Judicial Policy of Ratio Decidendi regarding Corporate Criminal Liability towards Just Judgments. Indon. L. Rev., 14, 137.
Asshiddiqie, J. (2005). Konstitusi dan Konstitusionalisme Indonesia, Jakarta. Konstitusi Press.
Ažubalytė, R., & Titko, I. (2022). Remote criminal trial–fair trial? International Comparative Jurisprudence, 8(2).
Goldberg, S. H. (1980). Harmless Error: Constitutional Sneak Thief. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 71(4), 421–442.
González, R. C. (2022). The Ratio Decidendi through Mexican Lens. Problema: Anuario de Filosofía y Teoría Del Derecho, 16, 1.
Hakiki, Y. R., & Taufiqurrahman, T. (2023). The Idea of Structuring National Legislation Based on The Ratio of Decidendi & Obiter Dictum Constitutional Court Decision: Gagasan Penataan Legislasi Nasional Berbasis Ratio Decidendi Dan Obiter Dictum Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 20(1), 78–99.
Henderson, Z. L. (2020). A Comprehensive Consideration of the Structural-Error Doctrine. Mo. L. Rev., 85, 965.
Kamin, S. (2002). Harmless error and the rights/remedies split. Va. L. Rev., 88, 1.
Leahy, J. K. (2022). Undead Dicta or Haunted Holdings? A Closer Look at the Zombie Subjective Intent Partnership Formation Cases. UNHL Rev., 21, 1.
Lin, M. (2023). Trial and Error: A Comparative Perspective on the Lay Participation in Criminal Trials and Appellate Review of Errors in Taiwan. Ind. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev., 33, 93.
Mahfud, M. D. (2010). Membangun politik hukum, menegakkan konstitusi. Rajawali Pers.
Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Penelitian Hukum, Jakarta, Kencana 2009. Dalam Penerapan Teori Hukum Pada Penelitian Tesis Dan Disertasi, Salim HS, Erlies Septiana Nurbani, Rajawali Pers.
Mladenović, I. (2022). Considerations on democracy in Rawls’s A Theory of Justice. Prolegomena: Časopis Za Filozofiju, 21(1), 9–24.
Naufal, R. S., Rusmiati, E., & Ramdan, A. (2021). Urgensi Pembaharuan Hukum Autopsi Dalam Proses Penyidikan Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan Untuk Mencapai Kebenaran Materiil. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 18(3), 351–363.
Nugroho, D. R., & Suteki, S. (2020). Membangun Budaya Hukum Persidangan Virtual (Studi Perkembangan Sidang Tindak Pidana via Telekonferensi). Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia, 2(3), 291–304.
Nugroho, K. L. S. (2021). Criminal Law Policy of Justice Collaborator in Corruption Crime Case. Law Reform, 17(1), 24–35.
Rahardjo, S. (2006). Hukum dalam Jagat Ketertiban (Bacaan Mahasiswa Program Doktor Ilmu Hukum Universitas Diponegoro). UKI press.
Stein, R. A. (2019). What exactly is the rule of law. Hous. L. Rev., 57, 185.
Sukarmini, W., & Idrus, N. S. (2020). Penerapan Pidana Kekayaan Intelektual Dalam Putusan Pengadilan. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, 49(1), 90–102.
Tracz, E. T. (2019). Revisiting the right to a speedy trial: reconciling the sixth amendment with the speedy trial act. Cap. UL Rev., 47, 1.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/akta.v12i1.43629
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2025 JURNAL AKTA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Jurnal Akta has been indexed by:
Editorial Office: Jurnal Akta Room 2nd Floor Imam As Syafei Building Faculty of Law Universitas Islam Sultan Agung. Jln. Kaligawe KM. 4, Semarang City, Central Java, Indonesia. Phone +62 24 6583584 Fax +62 24 6582455
Email: jurnalakta@unissula.ac.id