Psychology Law Point of Review (MK Sample Case, Akil Mochtar Affairs)

This article tried to analyze the psychology of a judge products in court. Constitutional Court affairs by its chairman, Akil Mochtar, is a good example to examine. Enjoy this logical based research and this article open to any comment.

Key Word: imagery as a hyperreality of fact, judges product, society point of view.

“Kompas” Daily Newspaper, make notification: (please make attention the underline words)

“Skandal MK (Mahkamah Konstitusi) membuat publik marah dan geram. Hasil jajak pendapat harian ini mengonfirmasi, lembaga produk reformasi yang selama ini disegani dan dipercaya publik itu kini terpuruk. MK kini dicaci. Mayoritas responden (88,3 persen), menurut jajak pendapat yang diadakan 9—11 Oktober 2013, menyatakan citra MK buruk (red: setelah Ketua MK, Akil Mochtar, tertangkap tangkap Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) dengan tuduhuan korupsi dan kolusi). Padahal,  pada Juni 2012, sebanyak 65,2 persen responden masih menganggap citra MK baik. Hampir lebih dari separuh responden (54,2 persen) tak lagi memercayai MK! MK dihadapkan pada krisis kelembagaan yang parah. Mayoritas responden (91,1 persen) setuju perlu seleksi ulang hakim konstitusi. Kondisi ini jika tak segera diselamatkan bisa menjadi ganjalan dalam pelaksanaan Pemilu 9 April 2014.” (Tajuk Rencana Kompas, 16 Oktober 2013, page 6)

Labirin Paradoksal

The big question is: IF AKIL MOCHTAR DIDN’T CAPTURE BY KPK, THE MK IMAGE WOULD STILL PERFECT IN SOCIETY MIND AND BELIEF. SO, THE PUBLIC EVALUASION WERE JUDGE PRODUCT, OR ITS EMOSIONAL BELIEF?

Unpack the Facts

I thought such that question is very simple to answer, cause I belive you also knew the answer. Yes, public eyes bound by hiperreality, their belief, their irrasional way of thinking, and their despair so they have to take something as a guardian of justice, a grand hope to stay being tough live in Indonesia which so many fuzzy logic contains it.

If KPK din’t catch Akil Mochtar, every respondends would said: “MK is great!” “MK decicion were and are perfect!” “Long live Akil Mochtar!”, etc. They never evaluate the product, or just evaluate the outer shell image?

The interesting things, public whose had litelatur knowledge, evaluate the MK product (this hypothetics also valid to another court decicion). But, why they were never said MK is a bad institution, refer the opinion polling by Kompas Daily above?

Both sides were right, or both side parties were wrong. Which one you defend?

This is the clue: if you are a judge have to make a decision, which one you accept the postulate? Then, if both parties are right, or both parties are wrong, which one party you grant as a winner?

Judge position were not difficult as we thougt before. I would like to revealing the grand fact, which the judge take advantages the un-perfect psychology of society unconscious mind.

The Good News is, judge always right!—if he/she was acknowledge as a good judge.

In case you are a judge, and than a case being submitted to you, but in casuistic situation, both parties whose the disputants in front of the court, were right, or were wrong. Than, are you wrong if you accepted the one party and made the another party as a loser? You are always right, isn’t? In your ratio decidendi, as a considering (“menimbang”) before decicion (“putusan”), you just need “lifted to the surface” the winner party argumentation (if the both parties were right), or you just need “lifted to the surface” the losser party failure/neglected (if the both parties were wrong), without allude the another party failure.

In case one party right, and another party were wrong, it is a very simple case. But, if both parties were right or if both parties were wrong, it also a very simple case, just pick one, and take advantages the unlogic psychology of society’s unconscious mind.

Great orator/writer, usualy used to take advantages the knowledge about this things. So, they come to the court, and than make some “illusion” trick, so they are winning the judge emosional side, even the case do not reach the conclusion. Or, if you are a journalist, don’t forget to build the public opinion, conjuration the rider, and than see the impact as “collateral damage” if we could said.

Unfair? Is that realy any fair if fuzzy logic make your fair argument sounded unfair?

I’m sorry, I don’t want to write this chapter, at least for now. Maybe you could joint us to reply this article, as a comment, objection, or else. Do not hesitate.

…

© Hak Cipta HERY SHIETRA.

Budayakan hidup jujur dengan menghargai Jirih Payah, Hak Cipta, Hak Moril, dan Hak Ekonomi Hery Shietra selaku Penulis.