Perlindungan hukum terhadap benda cagar budaya menurut Undang-undang nomor 5 tahun 1992 tentang benda cagar budaya :: Studi kasus pencurian dan pemalsuan area di museum Radya Pustaka Surakarta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk memperoleh gambaran dan jawaban mengenai perlindungan hukum terhadap karya peninggalan prasejarah dan penyelesaian hukum atas pencurian dan pemalsuan karya peninggalan prasejarah di museum Radya Pustaka Surakarta. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif yang dilengkapi dengan penelitian empiris dengan jenis penelitian kepustakaan dan penelitian lapangan. Penelitian dilakukan di Surakarta dengan teknik pengambilan sampel menggunakan teknik non random sampling yang berbentuk purposive sampling. Sementara itu alat pengumpulan data menggunakan studi dokumen dan wawancara dengan kombinasi antara pedoman terstruktur dan pedoman tidak terstruktur. Selanjutnya, data hasil penelitian dianalisis secara deskriptif kualitatif. Perlindungan dan pemeliharaan atau pengelolaan benda cagar budaya pada dasarnya menjadi tanggung jawab Pemerintah, meskipun demikian masyarakat, kelompok, atau perorangan dapat berperan serta. Bahkan masyarakat yang memiliki atau menguasai benda cagar budaya dibebani pula kewajiban untuk melindungi dan melestarikannya lengkap dengan sanksi hukumnya. Penyelesaian hukum terhadap kasus pencurian area di Museum Radya Pustaka adalah dengan adanya tindakan pemidanaan terhadap para terdakwa. Pemidanaan tersebut dijatuhkan karena sesuai dengan ketentuan pasal 26 UU Cagar Budaya, maka pidana penjara adalah sudah sepatutnya dijatuhi atas diri terdakwa karena tidak pernah meminta izin dari Pemerintah dan BP3 Jawa Tengah juga tidak pernah mengeluarkan/menerbitkan izin kepada terdakwa untuk memperdagangkan atau mengalihkan benda cagar budaya koleksi Museum Radya Pustaka Surakarta selain itu tidak ditemukan alasan-alasan pemaaf maupun pembenar yang dapat dijadikan pertimbangan untuk menghilangkan pertanggung jawaban pidana atau menghapus pidananya, maka atas diri terdakwa Kata kunci: Perlindungan Hukum, Benda Cagar Budaya, Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1992 tentang Cagar Budaya This research is aimed at having a picture and an answer of a legal protection for prehistoric artifacts and a legal solution of the thefts and forgeries of prehistoric artifacts of Radya Pustaka Museum Surakarta. The types of research employed in this activity is normative legal research complemented with empirical research and bibliographical research and field research. Research was carried out in Surakarta using non-random sampling technique in the form of purposive sampling. Meanwhile the data collation process utilizes documentary and interview studies with a combination of structured and unstructured guidelines. Eventually, the research data are analyzed with descriptive qualitative method. Basically, the protection and preservation or management of cultural artifacts are under the government responsibility. But the community, social groups and individuals may be entrusted with the obligation to protect and preserve them and failure to do them is punishable under the law. The theft of statues at Radya Pustaka Museum was solved by prosecuting the suspect. The prosecution is in keeping with the provision of article 26 of the Cultural Protection Law, and therefore the court decision sentencing imprisonment of the suspect is the right thing because he has never requested permission from the government and the Central Java BP3 has not given the suspect permit to sell or otherwise to transfer the cultural artifacts collected by Radya Pustaka Museum Surakarta, while there is no alibi to exempt him from criminal charges or penally. Keywords: Legal Protection, Cultural Artifacts, Law Number 5 of 1992 on Cultural Protection
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".