Legal Analysis of Criminal Responsibility for Perpetrators Carrying Sharp Obligations: Study of Decision Number 212/Pid.Sus/2023/Pn Lmg

Abstract

In Decision Number 212/Pid.Sus/2023/Pn Lmg, a person was convicted only for carrying a sharp object, but there was a dissenting opinion on this matter. This study examines the judge's considerations in the a quo decision and the criminal liability of the perpetrator carrying a sharp object in Decision Number 212/Pid.Sus/2023/PN Lmg using a normative juridical research method based on the case approach, concepts, and laws and regulations. The results of the study show that there are different considerations in the a quo decision, where the dissenting opinion criticizes the application of the law by the Public Prosecutor. The criminal liability of the perpetrator carrying a sharp object in the a quo decision is wrong because it does not meet the objective requirements of criminal liability.