Crown Witness in Criminal Evidence
In his capacity as an instrument of public law that supports the implementation and application of the provisions of the Criminal Code as the legal material formal law has had its own verification system that refers to the valid evidence as described in section 184 Criminal Procedure Code, which is valid evidence is: a). witness statements; b). statements of the experts, c). letters; d). instructions and e). description of the defendant.
While the term 'crown witness' is not contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. Although the Criminal Code there is no authentic definition of 'crown witnesses' (Kroon getuide) but in practice and based on empirical perspective there was a crown witness. Here is meant "crown witness" is defined: "a witness who came and / or taken from one or more suspects or defendants who together perform a criminal act and in the case where the witness was given a crown. The crown is given to a witness who is a defendant is in the form of waived prosecution of his case or given a demand that is very light when his case transferred to court or be forgiven for that mistake ever made of the witness ".
And there are only crown witness in a criminal case which is an offense inclusion. Setting the 'crown witness' is initially set in article 168 Criminal Code, which principle explains that the party together as the defendant can not be heard and may withdraw as a witness. Later in development, then a review of understanding (rekoqnisi) of the crown witness as evidence in a criminal case is set in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court Number: 1986 K/Pid/1989 dated March 21, 1990.
In the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court explained that no ban if the Attorney / Prosecutor General filed with the laden crown witness that the witness was in his capacity as defendants not included in the docket by the defendant provided testimony. And in the jurisprudence of the crown witnesses also stressed the definition is, "a friend accused of committing criminal offenses jointly put forward as a witness for the prosecution prove the charges, which separated his case for lack of evidence".
So here the use of crown witnesses 'justified' based on certain principles namely, 1) in case the inclusion of the offense, 2). there is a lack of evidence; and 3). Checked by the separation mechanism (splitsing); as for the latest developments of the Supreme Court correct its mistake by issuing a new opinion about the use of 'crown witnesses' in a criminal case, in which case the Supreme Court again explained that "the use of crown witnesses is contrary to the Criminal Procedure upholding human rights "(see: Jurisprudence: MARI, No. K/Pid/1994 1174 dated May 3, 1995; MARI, K/Pid/1994 No.1952, dated 29 April 1995; MARI, No. 1950 K/Pid/1995 , dated May 3, 1995; and MARI, No.. K/Pid/1995 1592, dated May 3, 1995.
The existence of the use of crown witnesses that continues to this day must be stopped, because it would cause legal problems. The existence of the reasons put forward klasic prosecutor, that in order to fulfill and achieve a sense of public justice as a crown witness the presentation of the basic argument is not a thing that justifies the use of crown witnesses as evidence can no longer be tolerated. In the normative use of the crown witness is contrary to the principles of fair trial and impartial (fair trial) and also a violation of universal human rights norms as stipulated in the Criminal Code itself, particularly the right to deny the defendant and the defendant possessed the right of defendants to proof obligations are not imposed (see article 66 Criminal Code), in addition also the use of 'crown witnesses' instruments also violate international human rights (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
Ending the authors of this paper to suggest to us as law enforcement as follows: 1). The use of crown witnesses as evidence in a criminal case must be reviewed to be terminated immediately, as opposed to the essence of human rights (human rights), especially the rights of the defendant; 2). Let us support implimentasi principles of fair trial and impartial (fair trial) to attempt to find a solution to replace the use of evidence 'crown witnesses' in order to bring proceedings in accordance with the rules contained in the Criminal Procedure Code and create a sense of public justice (public)