Penyitaan Barang Bukti Tindak Pidana pada Tingkat Pemeriksaan Persidangan
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penyitaan terhadap barang bukti sebagai coraborating evidence merupakan upaya paksa untuk memperkuat pembuktian dakwaan penuntut umum di persidangan. Realitasnya, masih terdapat barang bukti yang relevan dengan pembuktian dakwaan namun baru terungkap di persidangan dan belum dilakukan penyitaan. Ketentuan Pasal 38 ayat (1) KUHAP yang menegaskan penyitaan hanya dilakukan pada tingkat penyidikan oleh penyidik yang menjadikan penuntut umum kesulitan ketika berhadapan dengan realitas tersebut. Artikel ini berupaya menegaskan adanya kewenangan penuntut umum untuk melakukan penyitaan barang bukti tindak pidana pada tingkat pemeriksaan persidangan. Legal argumentasi penyitaan oleh penuntut umum ditemukan dalam PERJA 36/2011 maupun KMA 32/2006 sebagai bagian dari peraturan perundangan-undangan. AbstractConfiscation of evidence as coraborating evidence is a forced effort to strengthen the evidence of the public prosecutor's charges at the trial. In reality, there is still evidence that is relevant to the indictment, but it has only been revealed at court and has not been confiscated. The provisions of Article 38 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code which confirms confiscation are only carried out at the level of investigation by investigators which makes the public prosecutor difficult when dealing with this reality. This article seeks to emphasize the authority of the public prosecutor to confiscate evidence of a criminal offense at the trial examination level. Legal arguments for confiscation by the public prosecutor are found in PERJA 36/2011 and KMA 32/2006 as part of the legislation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 it