Legal practitioner Febri Diansyah considers the shift in detention\nstatus to be a legally valid step, provided it is not conducted\ntransactionally.<\/p>\n
This was stated in relation to the KPK\u2019s action, which temporarily\nchanged the detention of hajj quota corruption suspect Yaqut Cholil\nQoumas to house arrest. As of Monday (23\/3), Yaqut\u2019s status has been\nreturned to KPK detention centre.<\/p>\n
This former KPK spokesperson said that the shift in detention has a\nlegal basis under Article 108 paragraph (11) of the new Criminal\nProcedure Code.<\/p>\n
He stated that such actions have been known since the old Criminal\nProcedure Code in 1981 and also in the new one.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are three types of detention, starting from detention centre,\ncity detention, and house arrest. As long as there is no transactional\nelement behind the detention shift, it is a legally valid action,\u201d Febri\nsaid in a written statement on Tuesday (24\/3).<\/p>\n
Febri suspects that the shift in Yaqut\u2019s detention caused a stir in\nthe public because the KPK has never previously conducted a detention\nshift since its establishment.<\/p>\n
He continued that this is often linked to the KPK\u2019s firm stance in\nhandling corruption.<\/p>\n
\u201cHowever, if the KPK now has a different legal policy, I think it is\nvalid as long as there is sufficient explanation, it does not appear\nsecretive, and it applies to all or is not privileged for certain\nindividuals,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Febri explained that after the new Criminal Code and Criminal\nProcedure Code, there are several significant shifts in the purpose of\nsentencing.<\/p>\n
He exemplified sentencing that more prominently features\nrehabilitative and restorative aspects. In this case, sentencing no\nlonger follows the retributive or vengeful stream, which has long been\nabandoned.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe question is, is the KPK\u2019s action based on considerations of this\nshift in penal paradigm? We do not know yet because so far there has\nbeen no official explanation mentioning those considerations. We await\nthe official explanation from the KPK,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Moreover, Febri highlighted another main issue for all law enforcers,\nnamely caution in carrying out coercive measures, including\ndetention.<\/p>\n
He said that Article 100 paragraph (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code\nregulates the conditions for detention, such as concrete efforts to\ndestroy evidence or flee.<\/p>\n
According to him, detention before a court decision should be carried\nout very selectively and carefully.<\/p>\n
He exemplified cases of defendants who were detained but acquitted\nbased on court verdicts.<\/p>\n
\u201cImprisonment before that decision is certainly very detrimental and\ncauses suffering.<\/p>\n
No one wants to be imprisoned, especially for actions not committed.\nThis, in my view, is one form of respect for the presumption of\ninnocence principle,\u201d he said.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/former-kpk-spokesperson-defends-kpks-decision-on-yaquts-house-arrest-status-1774342284", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }