Article Sidebar

Submitted
September 24, 2024
Accepted
October 14, 2024
Published
October 16, 2024
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 80 Download : 50

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study focuses on the analysis of the application of the green victimology concept in criminal penalties for the trafficking of protected wildlife in Indonesia. This is a crucial issue since protected wildlife has not received proper attention as victim of crimes and is still seen as an object of trafficking. The study analyses ten court decisions in the last 10 years that have decided on protected wildlife trafficking cases. The purpose of this study is to identify how the green victimology concept views the criminal imposition of protected wildlife trafficking. The method used is normative legal research with a case study and conceptual approach. The results of this study show that green victimology is important to consider as a perspective that can aid in criminal sentencing. This is derived from the notion that recognizing animals as victim of crime will provide a more comprehensive perspective in looking at the entire justice system. This study also seeks to formulate a number of parameters for the application of green victimology concept in criminal sentencing that combines CITES, IUCN Red list, and deterrent sentencing objectives as key parameters for criminal sentencing. Based on these parameters, the authors did not find a certain pattern in the criminal imposition of wildlife trafficking cases. This can have implications from the absence of a clear philosophical basis, the potential for criminal disparities to conflict with the values of justice that are developing in society. This study recommends that guidelines for criminal penalties in wildlife trafficking cases be prepared by using the green victimology concept as the primary perspective basis. This is so that the verdict can accommodate the recognition of animals as victims and is oriented towards prevention efforts for crimes of similar nature.
Keywords: Green Victimology, Trafficking in Protected Wildlife, Criminal Punishment.


Abstrak
Penelitian ini berfokus pada analisis terhadap penerapan green victimology dalam penjatuhan pidana atas perkara perdagangan satwa liar yang dilindungi di Indonesia. Isu tersebut penting dikarenakan satwa liar yang dilindugi belum mendapatkan perhatian yang layak sebagai korban kejahatan dan masih dipandang sekedar sebagai objek perdagangan. Penelitian ini akan menganalisis sepuluh putusan pengadilan dalam rentang 10 tahun terakhir yang memutus perkara perdagangan satwa liar yang dilindungi. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui bagaimana green victimology memandang penjatuhan pidana atas perdagangan satwa liar yang dilindungi. Metode yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan kasus dan konseptual. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa green victimology penting untuk dipertimbangkan sebagai perspektif yang dapat membantu dalam penjatuhan pidana. Hal tersebut dikarenakan dengan merekognisi hewan sebagai korban kejahatan akan memberikan perspektif yang lebih komprehensif dalam memandang keadilan. Penelitian ini juga berusaha untuk merumuskan sejumlah parameter aplikasi green victimology dalam penjatuhan pidana yang mengkombinasikan CITES, IUCN Redlist, tujuan pemidanaan detterent sebagai parameter kunci penjatuhan pidana. Berdasarkan parameter tersebut, kami tidak menemukan adanya pola tertentu dalam penjatuhan pidana perkara tindak pidana perdagangan satwa liar. Hal tersebut dapat berimplikasi dari ketiadaan dasar filosofis yang jelas, potensi disparitas pemidanaan hingga bertentangan dengan nilai keadilan yang berkembang dalam masyarakat. Penelitian ini merekomendasikan untuk disusun pedoman penjatuhan pidana dalam kasus perdagangan satwa liar dengan menggunakan green victimology sebagai basis perspektif utama. Hal tersebut agar putusan yang dijatuhkan dapat mengakomodir rekognisi hewan sebagai korban dan berorientasi pada upaya pencegahan kejahatan dengan karakteristik serupa.
Kata kunci: Green Victimology, Perdagangan Satwa Liar yang Dilindungi, Penjatuhan Pidana.

Keywords

Green Victimology Trafficking in Protected Wildlife Criminal Punishment

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Daffa Prangsi Rakisa Wijaya Kusuma, Muhammad Mukhtar Pulungan

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

How to Cite
Rakisa Wijaya Kusuma, D. P., & Pulungan, M. M. (2024). Criminal Penalties for Wildlife Trafficking: A Green Victimology Perspective. Contemporary Issues in Criminal Law, 1(1), 81–106. https://doi.org/10.20885/CICL.vol1.iss1.art5
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Adi Pratama, Collin. “PERBANDINGAN PERATURAN CITES 1975 PADA PERATURAN PEMERINTAH NOMOR 8 TAHUN 1999 DAN IMPLEMENTASINYA PADA KASUS DI INDONESIA.” LITRA: Jurnal Hukum Lingkungan, Tata Ruang, Dan Agraria 2, no. 1 (October 31, 2022): 100–114. https://doi.org/10.23920/litra.v2i1.946.

  2. Ali, Mahrus. Hukum Pidana Lingkungan. Depok: Rajagrafindo Persada, 2020.

  3. Alkostar, Artidjo. “Kebutuhan Responsifitas Perlakuan Hukum Acara Pidana Dan Dasar Pertimbangan Pemidanaan Serta Judicial Immunity.” Jakarta, 2011. https://kepaniteraan.mahkamahagung.go.id/images/artikel/fondasi%20dan%20pertimbangan%20pemidanaan%20wadah%20pidana%20artidjo%20alkostar_edited.pdf.

  4. Ashworth, Andrew. “The Common Sense and Complications of General Deterrent Sentencing.” Criminal Law Review, no. 7 (July 1, 2019): 564–78. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/agispt.20190703013517.

  5. Betts, Jessica, Richard P. Young, Craig Hilton‐Taylor, Michael Hoffmann, Jon Paul Rodríguez, Simon N. Stuart, and E.J. Milner‐Gulland. “A Framework for Evaluating the Impact of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.” Conservation Biology 34, no. 3 (June 13, 2020): 632–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13454.

  6. Broad, Steven. “Measuring The Scope and Scale of Wildlife Crimes.” Geneva, Switzerland: Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, 2024. www.globalinitiative.net.

  7. Challender, Daniel W. S., Patricia J. Cremona, Kelly Malsch, Janine E. Robinson, Alyson T. Pavitt, Janet Scott, Rachel Hoffmann, et al. “Identifying Species Likely Threatened by International Trade on the IUCN Red List Can Inform CITES Trade Measures.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 7, no. 11 (October 2, 2023): 1944–1944. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02228-0.

  8. Champagnon, Jocelyn, Johan Elmberg, Matthieu Guillemain, Philip Lavretsky, Robert G. Clark, and Pär Söderquist. “Silent Domestication of Wildlife in the Anthropocene: The Mallard as a Case Study.” Biological Conservation 288 (December 2023): 110354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110354.

  9. CITES. “The CITES Appendices.” https://cites.org/eng/app/index.php, n.d.

  10. Efritadewi, Ayu. Modul Hukum Pidana. Tanjungpinang: UMRAH Press, 2020.

  11. Ellis, Anthony. “A Deterrence Theory of Punishment.” Source: The Philosophical Quarterly 53, no. 212 (2003): 337–51. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3543120.

  12. Finn, Catherine, Florencia Grattarola, and Daniel Pincheira-Donoso. “More Losers than Winners: Investigating Anthropocene Defaunation through the Diversity of Population Trends.” Biological Reviews 98, no. 5 (October 1, 2023): 1732–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12974.

  13. Ginta, Yohanes Valdi Seriang, and Andi Hartik. “Tak Ditemukan Niat Jahat, Nyoman Sukena DitunTak Ditemukan Niat Jahat, Nyoman Sukena Dituntut Bebas Dalam Perkara Landak Jawa.” Kompas, September 13, 2024.

  14. Gorobets, Alexander. “Wild Fauna Conservation: IUCN-CITES Match Is Required.” Ecological Indicators 112 (May 2020): 106091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106091.

  15. HANANTA, DWI. “PERTIMBANGAN KEADAAN-KEADAAN MERINGANKAN DAN MEMBERATKAN DALAM PENJATUHAN PIDANA / AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDERATION ON SENTENCING.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan 7, no. 1 (March 21, 2018): 87. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.7.1.2018.87-108.

  16. INTERPOL. “Wildlife Crime: Closing Ranks on Serious Crime in the Illegal Animal Trade.” https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2020/Wildlife-crime-closing-ranks-on-serious-crime-in-the-illegal-animal-trade#:~:text=Wildlife%20crime%20has%20far%2Dreaching,the%20wildlife%20criminal%20has%20changed, 2020.

  17. IUCN. “IUCN Red List 2017-2020 Report,” 2017.

  18. IUCN Species Survival Commision. “Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIESTM,” 2024. https://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf.

  19. Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan, Direktorat Jenderal Penegakan Hukum Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan. “Laporan Kinerja Tahun 2023,” 2024. https://gakkum.menlhk.go.id/assets/info-publik/LKJ_Ditjen_PHLHK_2023_rev0_compressed.pdf.

  20. Liew, Jia Huan, Zi Yi Kho, Rayson Bock, Hing Lim, Caroline Dingle, Timothy Carlton Bonebrake, Yik Hei Sung, and David Dudgeon. “International Socioeconomic Inequality Drives Trade Patterns in the Global Wildlife Market.” Sci. Adv 7, no. 5 (2021). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf7679.

  21. Lorimer, Jamie. Wildlife in the Anthropocene Conservation after Nature. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, 2015.

  22. Lucia, V. De. “Competing Narratives and Complex Genealogies: The Ecosystem Approach in International Environmental Law.” Journal of Environmental Law 27, no. 1 (March 1, 2015): 91–117. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/equ031.

  23. Lynch, Michael J., and Paul B. Stretesky. “Global Warming, Global Crime: A Green Criminological Perspective” on Global Environmental Harm. Edited by Rob White. London: Willan, 2010. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843927983.

  24. McGowan, Philip J.K., Kathy Traylor‐Holzer, and Kristin Leus. “IUCN Guidelines for Determining When and How Ex Situ Management Should Be Used in Species Conservation.” Conservation Letters 10, no. 3 (May 26, 2017): 361–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12285.

  25. Muladi. HAM Dalam Perspekti Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Bandung: Refika Aditama, 2005.

  26. Muladi, and Barda Nawawi Areif. Teori-Teori Dan Kebijakan Pidana. Bandung: Alumni, 2010.

  27. Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 tentang Pedoman Mengadili Perkara Lingkungan Hidup (2023).

  28. Perkumpulan SKALA. “Potret Perdagangan Ilegal Satwa Liar Di Indonesia,” 2016. www.PerkumpulanSKALA.net.

  29. Permana Adi, Wahyadyatmika. “Implementasi CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) Dalam Menangani Perdagangan Kukang Ilegal Di Indonesia.” Journal of International Relations 3, no. 4 (2017): 21–31. http://ejournal-s1.undip.ac.id/index.php/jihiWebsite:http://www.fisip.undip.ac.id.

  30. Raya, Bella Cinu, and Yeni Widowati. “Disparitas Penjatuhan Pidana Terhadap Pelaku Perdagangan Satwa Yang Dilindungi.” Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (IJCLC) 2, no. 1 (June 26, 2021). https://doi.org/10.18196/ijclc.v2i1.12063.

  31. Rivanie, Syarif Saddam, Syamsuddin Muchtar, Audyna Mayasari Muin, A.M. Djaelani Prasetya, and Ali Rizky. “Perkembangan Teori-Teori Tujuan Pemidanaan.” Halu Oleo Law Review 6, no. 2 (September 28, 2022): 176–88. https://doi.org/10.33561/holrev.v6i2.4.

  32. Roberts, Julian V. “Punishing, More or Less.” In Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing, 1–20. Cambridge University Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979170.002.

  33. Salim, Agus, Ria Anggraeni Utami, and Zico Junius Fernando. “GREEN VICTIMOLOGY: SEBUAH KONSEP PERLINDUNGAN KORBAN DAN PENEGAKAN HUKUM LINGKUNGAN DI INDONESIA.” Bina Hukum Lingkungan 7, no. 1 (October 30, 2022): 59–79. https://doi.org/10.24970/bhl.v7i1.302.

  34. Schlosberg, David. Defining Environmental Justice. Oxford University PressOxford, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199286294.001.0001.

  35. Smith, Lindy, Peta Murphy, megan Pearce, Adrinne Walters, and Claire Leyden-Duval. “The Role of Victims of Crime in the Criminal Trial Process.” Victorian Law Reform Commission, 2016.

  36. The International Union for Conservation of Nature. Artivle II (1) Convention on International in Endangered Species of Wilda Fauna and Flora. (1973).

  37. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (2023).

  38. ———. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman (2009).

  39. United Nations Environment Programme. “The State of Knowledge of Crimes That Have Serious Impacts on the Environment,” 2018.

  40. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. “World Wildlife Crime Report Trafficking in Protected Species,” 2020.

  41. Wahyuni, Fitri. Dasar Dasar Hukum Pidana Di Indonesia. 1st ed. Tangerang Selatan: PT Nusantara Persada Utama, 2017.

  42. White, R. D.. Environmental Harm : An Eco-Justice Perspective. The Policy Press, 2013.

  43. White, Rob. “Ecocentrism and Criminal Justice.” Theoretical Criminology 22, no. 3 (August 30, 2018): 342–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480618787178.

  44. ———. Environmental Harm an Eco Justice-Perspective. Bristol University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgsq7.

  45. ———. “Green Victimology and Non-Human Victims.” International Review of Victimology 24, no. 2 (May 1, 2018): 239–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758017745615.

  46. ———. “Green Victimology and Non-Human Victims.” International Review of Victimology 24, no. 2 (May 6, 2018): 239–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758017745615.

  47. Widodo, and Francisca Romana Harjiyatni. “Analisis Terhadap Tindak Pidana Perdagangan Satwa Liar Yang Dilindungi (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Bantul).” Jurnal Kajian Hasil Penelitian Hukum 3, no. 1 (2019): 701–11. http://e-journal.janabadra.ac.id/index.php/JMIH.

  48. Williams, Christopher. “An Environmental Victimology.” Social Justice 23, no. 4 (1996): 16–40. https://about.jstor.org/terms.