Judge's Consideration: The Maid's Active Role

In his consideration of Dodi Supriadi, the judge considered that although Dodi did not directly stab the victim, his involvement was very active. This assessment was based on Dodi's actions of carrying a sharp weapon, giving a knife to Marhaban, inviting him to the victim's house to "fix the problem", and staying with the perpetrator during the incident.

Dodi was the owner of the idea to go to the victim's house, the provider of the weapon (knife), and the person who provided security guarantees to Bam by saying he would be responsible if something fatal happened. The judge viewed Dodi's role as not just passively assisting, but psychologically strengthening the main perpetrator's intention to execute the victim.

Inequality or Justice?

Although sociologically this verdict can be considered to fulfill a sense of justice for the victim's family because both perpetrators are considered equally responsible for the loss of a person's life, in legal dogmatics, this verdict is considered an aberration. Doctrinally, Indonesian criminal law clearly distinguishes between the main perpetrator (pleger) and the accomplice (medeplichtige). Assistance in a criminal offense is actually considered to have a lighter degree of guilt than the main perpetrator because the contribution is indirect.

The inequality of punishment here lies not in the difference in numbers, but in the "uniformity" of sanctions for two juridically different roles. The prosecution by the Public Prosecutor (JPU) also looks "evenly" by charging both of them 14 years in prison. Whereas the difference in sanction rules in Article 57 of the Criminal Code clearly shows the will of the legislator to distinguish the weight of criminal responsibility between the main perpetrator and the accomplice. In the theory of criminal participation, assistance is a form of accessory involvement that is conceptually below the main perpetrator. When the main perpetrator and the accomplice are sentenced to the same punishment, there is a concern that the differentiation of roles in criminal law becomes blurred.

This murder case is certainly an interesting example of the discourse on the extent to which an accomplice to a crime can be held accountable on a par with the main perpetrator.