A THEORETICAL AND AXIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE DETENTION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH PSYCHOTIC MENTAL DISORDERS UNDER KUHAP (THE INDONESIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE): FROM PROCEDURAL INSTRUMENT TO DISGUISED PUNISHMENT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22031311Keywords:
Detention, KUHAP, Psychotic Mental Disorders, Disguised Punishment, Procedural Incapacity, Non-Punitive Detention, Human Rights Protection.Abstract
Detention under the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) is intended to function as a temporary, non-punitive procedural instrument to ensure the proper administration of criminal proceedings. However, the application of detention to individuals with psychotic mental disorders reveals a structural inconsistency between substantive criminal law and criminal procedure, causing detention practices to shift into a form of disguised punishment. This article adopts a normative-analytical approach to assess conceptual gaps within KUHAP, examine the implications of procedural incapacity, and evaluate the urgency of implementing medically rehabilitative detention grounded in international human rights principles. The study analyzes legal literature, national regulations, and forensic perspectives to trace the consequences of conventional detention practices for individuals with psychotic mental disorders. The findings indicate that standard detention not only fails to protect their rights but also heightens psychosocial risks, exacerbates mental conditions, and produces substantive injustice. This research underscores the need to reformulate KUHAP by recognizing procedural incapacity, implementing non-punitive detention based on medical rehabilitation, and integrating the principles of legal utility, substantive justice, and human rights protection. Such an approach is expected to bridge the gap between substantive criminal law and criminal procedure while affirming that the protection of the rights of individuals with psychotic mental disorders is not merely a domestic obligation but also a commitment to international human rights standards.
Downloads
References
Arief, Barda Nawawi. Collected Essays on Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 2020, pp. 145–147.
Arief, Barda Nawawi. Bunga Rampai Hukum Pidana & Hukum Acara Pidana. Citra Aditya Bakti, 2020.
Department of Health. Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice. London: UK Government, 2015.
Fletcher, G. P. Basic Concepts of Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018, pp. 112–115.
Hariadi, M. R., Sudjatmiko, & Naimah, N. (2023). Pembuktian orang dengan gangguan jiwa (ODGJ) sebagai alasan penghapus pidana. IUS: Jurnal Ilmiah Fakultas Hukum, 11(1), hlm. 75–78. https://doi.org/10.51747/ius.v0i1.1416
Hart, H. L. A. Punishment and Responsibility. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968, pp. 204–207.
Kurniawan, A. “Penahanan ODGJ: Perspektif Psikiatri Forensik dan HAM.” Jurnal Hukum dan Kesehatan, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2020.
UU RI No. 20 Tahun 2025 Tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana.
Latili, N. Latili, N. (2025). Perlindungan hukum terhadap pelaku tindak pidana yang mengalami gangguan mental. Ganec Swara, 19(1), hlm. 300–302. https://doi.org/10.59896/gara.v19i1.219
Lubis, A. Hukum Acara Pidana di Indonesia. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2019.
Mahmud Marzuki, Peter. Penelitian Hukum: Teori dan Metode. Jakarta: Kencana, 2018.
Morse, S. J. Mental Disorder and Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Mulder, C. L., & Daalman, K. “Forensic Psychiatry and the BOPZ in the Netherlands: Legal Framework and Clinical Practice.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 59 (2018), pp. 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.01.005
Pradea, R., Haryadi, & Arfa, N, Orang dengan gangguan jiwa (ODGJ) sebagai korban tindak pidana: Bagaimana aturan hukum pidananya? PAMPAS: Journal of Criminal Law, 5(1),
Sagara, P. W., et al. (2023). Sanksi pidana terhadap pelaku tindak pidana yang mengalami gangguan kejiwaan. Jurnal Konstruksi Hukum, 4(1).
Simons, K. Criminal Procedure and Human Rights. London: Routledge, 2016, pp. 67–70.
Suparto. “Paradoks Hukum Acara Pidana dalam Penahanan ODGJ.” Jurnal Kriminologi Indonesia, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2021, Suryani, D. Psychosocial Aspects of Detention of Persons with Mental Disorders. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2019, pp. 57–62.
Tapowolo, W. M. P., Medan, K. K., & Dima, A. D. (2025). Pertanggungjawaban pidana dan perlindungan hukum bagi pelaku tindak pidana dengan gangguan kejiwaan. The Juris, 9(1), hlm. 78–80. https://doi.org/10.56301/juris.v9i1.1591
Torrey, E. F. “Managing Mentally Ill Offenders in the United States.” Psychiatric Services, 65 (2014), pp. 121–129.
Torrey, E. F., & Zdanowicz, M. T. “Forensic Mental Health Services in the United States: Practices and Outcomes.” Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 31(3) (2020), pp. 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2020.1712356
United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2006. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html
United Nations. Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care. 1991, Principles 16–18.
UK Department of Health. Mental Health Act 1983 and Amendments. London, 2017.
Wexler, D. B. “Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Mental Health Law.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 50 (2017), pp. 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.11.005
