Revision Of KUHAP, Maqdir Ismail Suggests To DPR About Suspects Don't Be Arrested Before Court Decision

Meeting with general opinion (RDPU) Commission III of the DPR. Photo: Nailin/VOI

JAKARTA - Lawyer Maqdir Ismail suggested that law enforcers not detain suspects before the court's decision. The proposal refers to legal procedures in the Netherlands as well as the condition of overcapacity correctional institutions.

This was conveyed by Maqdir Ismail when giving input on the preparation of the Draft Law on Criminal Procedures or the revision of the Criminal Procedure Code to Commission III of the DPR.

"Regarding the limitation on the detention period before or after the trial, one of which is quite interesting from the Netherlands. Currently, it is very rare for people to be held for trial, yes, that person will be detained after he has served his sentence when he has been sentenced," said Maqdir in a public hearing (RDPU) with Commission III of the DPR RI which was held at the Parliament Complex, Senayan, Jakarta, Wednesday, March 5.

"Perhaps this is one of the notes we need to think about, so it's not like it is now. Where is our Correctional Institution even the detention of our country is overcrowded or there are even some friends who say that people are arranged like that," continued PDIP secretary general's attorney, Hasto Kristiyanto.

According to Maqdir, this condition is a form of human rights violation (HAM). Therefore, he asked Commission III of the DPR to consider regulations related to the time limit for detention.

"I propose and I prefer that detention can be carried out after a decision is made. Unless there is a need, for example, for people whose address is not clear, the job is not clear because people whose political figures at home are clear, who easily see it, shouldn't need to be detained," said Maqdir.

"Moreover, there is no very subtantial evidence that this person is already in effect and a crime," he added.

In addition, Maqdir also asked Commission III of the DPR to choose the term crown witness or Justice Collaborator against criminals who provide information to law enforcers. Because according to him, it means that the two terms are more or less the same.

"The last thing I want to say is our choice for a crown witness or justice collaborator. In legal practice, we already know justice collaborators. Even that has been regulated by the Supreme Court as well as by the prosecutor's office. Even of course certain rules related to LPSK," he said.

"So I think our choice in the Criminal Procedure Code Bill is whether we call it justice collaborator or he is a witness to the crown even though both are in legal practice, I see that there are not so many differences," concluded Maqdir.