The Principle of Audi and Alteram Partem in The Process of Proof in Criminal Cases (Analysis of Decision Study No. 123/PID.B/2022/PN YYK)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A decision is a legal product issued by a judge in resolving a case presented at trial. A decision must reflect a sense of justice obtained from the facts revealed at trial and compliance with existing laws and regulations. Legal considerations in a decision aim to explore the facts revealed in the trial based on the principle of audi et alteram partem which must exist and be the basis. The application of audi et alteram partem aims to ensure that the panel of judges carefully listens to the arguments and facts put forward by both parties, namely the public prosecutor (JPU) or legal advisor. Therefore, the aim of this research aims to describe how the panel of judges examined case Number 123/Pid.B/2022/PN Yyk by applying the principles of evidence in the Criminal Procedure Law. To answer these legal problems, this research uses a combined research method of normative and empirical data with data collection methods by conducting interviews and literature reviews. The research results show that the panel of judges who examined case Number 123/Pid.B/2022/PN Yyk were assumed to have ignored the principle of audi et alteram partem in their decision. This principle of balance (justice) has not been fully fulfilled, because the evidence in the trial has not reached conformity, thus making the defendant position weaker.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".