Criminal Expert Alludes To Language Expert At Hasto's Session: Can't Have Context Value

Hasto Kristiyanto/DOK ANTARA PHOTO/Bayu Pratama S./bar.

JAKARTA - A criminal law expert from Muhammadiyah University Jakarta, Chairul Huda, said that calling the word 'oke sip' cannot be used as a basis for the context of corruption in the form of bribery.

He conveyed this opinion when presented as an expert in the trial of the alleged bribery case for the replacement process (PAW) of the DPR for the 2019-2024 period and the obstruction of Harun Masiku's investigation to the accused PDIP Secretary General Hasto Kristiyanto.

Hasto Kristiyanto's attorney, Ronny Talapessy, in the trial initially alluded to the results of an expert analysis which stated that the word 'oke sip' could be the basis for making someone a convict.

"In the trial because this witness has been examined, he stated that there was no action from the defendant, so a linguist was presented to translate the conversation, telephone, and linguists said that they had to be asked to the communicating subject, who gave the message and received the message. During the trial we showed that this witness said that the father was not a defendant, then can the language expert's statement make someone a convict?" asked Ronny during a trial at the Corruption Court in Jakarta, Friday, June 20.

Responding to the question, Chairul stated that linguists only assess the text in the form of verbal speech. But you can't conclude the context behind the conversation.

"You can't judge the context, because those who can judge the context are legal experts. If linguists can't judge the context," he said.

"He only stated 'sophisticated' what it means but in what context it is conveyed in a state, by whom, in what situation, it is the legal expert who assesses. So if linguists only look at it in terms of text or speech," continued Chairul.

Therefore, Chairul assessed that in handling cases of alleged obstruction or corruption there is no need to involve linguists. However, criminal experts must be involved because they can give their views regarding whether or not there is a criminal offense.

Meanwhile, the involvement of linguists is said to be more suitable in handling hate speech cases. Where, his expertise can be used to dissect the meaning of statements that are the subject of problems.

"Well, what linguists need is a criminal act in which the act is manifested in speech... article on hate speech, hate speech, then linguists need it, if you challenge the investigation, there is no need for linguists," said Chairul.

It is known, at the previous trial, a linguist, Frans Asisi came to explain about the meaning of 'ok sip' in Hasto Kristiyanto's conversation with Saeful Bahri. According to him, both parties have understood the material of the conversation.

"Try to be separated from the expert already know the context (expected receipt of money). So I want this to be purely an expert in researching words, I don't know the context, this is a conversation between who and whom. Well, here there is a word sent, a message sent by Saeful, on behalf of Saeful. ," asked the prosecutor.

"Then immediately answered ok cyp at 16.12. This means that there is a pause that is only one minute, immediately answered okay. Well, just like the previous question, what are you experts arresting here? When you say report sliding 850, okay sir. Why isn't there another question? 850 what is this?" he continued.

"It means they understand each other. They understand each other. They already understand," replied Frans.