LEGAL OPINION
Question: Dikatakan oleh Pak Hery (SHIETRA & PARTNERS), kalau keterangan terdakwa tidak semestinya dijadikan alat bukti dalam sistem hukum acara pidana modern, dengan alasan bertentangan dengan doktrin non self incrimination. Tapi gimana jika seperti kasus Sengkon dan Karta, dipidana penjara bertahun-tahun, sebelum kemudian ada terpidana lain yang mengakui perbuatan yang dituduhkan pada Sengkon dan Karta. Tanpa pengakuan pelaku yang sebenarnya tersebut, mungkin saja selamanya Sengkon dan Karta akan diingat sejarah peradilan sebagai seorang kriminal.
Brief Answer: Untuk menjawab pertanyaan retorik demikian, tampaknya penulis akan menawarkan pertanyaan lanjutan: Bagaimana jika seandainya pelaku menyewa atau membayar orang lain dengan iming-iming sejumlah dana, agar orang tersebut mengaku sebagai pelaku kejahatan yang sebenarnya, yang tidak lain si pelaku yang sesungguhnya telah “membeli kebebasan” dengan menyewa orang lain untuk mengakui perbuatan kriminil demikian?
Dari berbagai laporan dan publikasi Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat di Indonesia yang bergerak dibidang hak asasi manusia, ditemukan banyaknya pengakuan tersangka bermula dari penganiayaan fisik oleh pihak penyidik, mulai dari dibiarkan menunggu berjam-jam dengan diberi makan asap cerutu, ditekan, disakiti, hingga disiksa demi mendapat “pengakuan”—pengakuan yang menyudutkan dirinya sendiri meski lebih menyerupai untuk memuaskan para penyidik agar tidak lagi menyakiti tersangka yang diinterogasi.
Prinsip non self incrimination memiliki relevansi terhadap adagium latin “nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare”, yang oleh USLegal dimaknai sebagai: (https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/nemo-tenetur-seipsum-accusare/)
“Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare is a legal maxim in Latin. It states that no one is bound to incriminate or accuse himself.
“The following is an example of a case law referring to the maxim:
“The maxim nemo tenetur seipsum accusare had its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons, which [have] long obtained in the continental system, and, until the expulsion of the Stuarts from the British throne in 1688, and the erection of additional barriers for the protection of the people against the exercise of arbitrary power, [were] not uncommon even in England. While the admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused person be asked to explain his apparent connection with a crime under investigation, the ease with which the questions put to him may assume an inquisitorial character, the temptation to press the witness unduly, to browbeat him if he be timid or reluctant, to push him into a corner, and to entrap him into fatal contradictions, which is so painfully evident in many of the earlier state trials, ...’
Sekadar mengandaikan (meski pernah benar-benar terjadi), seseorang sekadar menuangkan “uneg-uneg” dalam bentuk corat-coret tulisan tangan, bahwa dirinya berencana membunuh seseorang yang dibencinya. Setelah kekesalan mereda, kertas berisi corat-coret tersebut dibuang olehnya ke dalam tong sampah. Beberapa waktu kemudian, dirinya dihadapkan ke persidangan sebagai terdakwa, dimana jaksa kemudian mendakwa dengan tuduhan merencanakan pembunuhan, dengan dasar alat bukti: kertas corat-coret yang diperoleh dari: tong sampah!
Bila sesuatu dibuat oleh seseorang hanya untuk menjadi konsumsi dirinya sendiri, maka hal tersebut tidak dapat dijadikan alat bukti untuk menjerat sang pembuatnya. Kecuali, bila kertas corat-coret tersebut akan dan telah diperlihatkan kepada orang lain oleh si pembuatnya, maka sejak saat itulah prinsip non self incimination terputus, dimana orang lain yang diperlihatkan kertas corat-coret berisi rencana pembunuhan itulah yang dapat dimintai kesaksian oleh pengadilan untuk menjatuhkan hukuman bagi sang perencana tindak pidana.
Di Indonesia, hak seorang terdakwa baru sebatas asas “praduga tidak bersalah” (presumption of innocence). Kontras dengan prinsip pemidanaan hukum di Amerika Serikat, prinsip untuk tidak mengkriminilkan diri sendiri terkandung dalam The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Konstitusi Negara Amerika Serikat):
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Bila kita mengakui hak seorang tersangka ataupun terdakwa untuk diam sebagaimana praktik hukum pidana di Amerika Serikat sebagai “Miranda Rules” (you have right to remain silent!), maka sejatinya seseorang diberi hak untuk memusnahkan seluruh alat bukti yang dihadirkan jaksa penuntut bila bukti-bukti yang memberatkannya tersebut dibuat olehnya hanya untuk menjadi “diary” bagi dirinya sendiri. Seseorang tidak dibenarkan untuk mengambil “diary” tersebut tanpa seizin penulisnya, untuk digunakan sebagai dasar mempidana bagi sang penulis.
Contoh ekstrim berikut sekadar sebagai ilustrasi: sepasang suami-istri yang sedang berhubungan badaniah direkam aktivitasnya secara diam-diam oleh phak ketiga tanpa izin, kemudian disebar-luaskan di dunia maya. Apakah sang suami-istri tersebut dapat dipidana dengan tuduhan melakukan kegiatan asusila dan melanggar UU ITE?
Terdapat sebuah contoh konkret yang pernah terjadi, seorang artis dengan artis lain yang tidak terikat hubungan pernikahan, merekam kegiatan hubungan badaniah yang dilakukannya, namun sekadar untuk arsip rekaman pribadinya. Namun orang ketiga, yang secara tidak disengaja menemukan rekaman tersebut dalam komputer yang dipinjam dari sang artis, kemudian menyebarluaskan video rekaman tersebut ke publik. Apakah kedua artis tersebut layak dipidanakan, ataukah sang penyebar video asusila yang seharusnya dipidana?
Namun demikian, “Miranda Rule” membatasi keberlakuan prinsip “non self incrimination”, dimana ketika seorang tersangka sudah diingatkan bahwa segala hal yang diucapkan olehnya dapat digunakan sebagai alat bukti untuk memberatkan tuduhan terhadap dirinya, namun tetap berceloteh yang justru menyudutkan dirinya sendiri, maka prinsip non self incrimination tidak lagi dapat diberlakukan. Dengan demikian, bahkan negara dengan sistem hukum sekaliber Amerika Serikat, prinsip non self incrimination diberlakukan secara terbatas—yakni akan berhenti seketika setelah “Miranda Warning” dibacakan oleh seorang pihak berwajib terhadap tersangka yang ditangkap olehnya.
Namun setidaknya, sistem hukum di Amerika Serikat menjamin serta memberi hak bagi tersangka maupun terdakwa untuk “diam” (silent / bungkam). Berbeda bila konteksnya ialah kepada tersangka tidak diberi dan tidak dijamin untuk memilih “diam”, maka prinsip non self incrimination berlaku mutlak dan absolut.
Terlepas dari kontradiksi yang ada, stelsel hukum pembuktian pidana di Indonesia mengadopsi keberlakuan “keyakinan hakim” (yakin seyakin-yakinnya) yang memeriksa perkara, apakah pengakuan demikian dapat diverifikasi kebenarannya.
Itulah sebabnya, pemidanaan hanya dapat dijatuhkan, minimum bila terdapat dua alat bukti. Alat bukti berupa pengakuan terdakwa, tidak menjadi memadai tanpa didukung alat bukti lainnya. itulah sebabnya, ketika menjatuhkan amar putusan pemidanaan, Majelis Hakim selalu memuat pernyataan: “Terdakwa terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan melakukan ...”—Pembuktian pidana bersifat materiil, berbeda dengan sistem pembuktian perkara perdata yang bersifat formil.
PEMBAHASAN:
Prinsip non self incrimination merupakan sebuah prinsip yang dibentuk lewat praktik peradilan negara dengan sistem hukum Common Law. Untuk mengetahui makna sebenarnya dibalik prinsip tersebut, maka kita hanya dapat merujuk pada akar teori yang membentuknya, yakni dari falsafah pemidanaan yang tumbuh dan berkembang di negara-negara berbudaya hukum Anglo Saxon.
Untuk memahami bagaimana cara penerapan prinsip tersebut dan awal mula kelahirannya, kita dapat menyimak dari telaah berikut dari http://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Right_to_Non_Self-Incrimination :
“A right to non-self-incrimination exists in many jurisdictions. In the United States, this is called the right to remain silent. The court recognizes this right in several ways. First, the court has recognized the right to non-self-incrimination when it fashions common law privileges such as the attorney-client privilege, marital confidences and spousal testimonial privileges, and the priest-penitent privilege. In the United States a defendant is notified of this right by police through Miranda Warnings.
Because the defendant has a right to non-self-incrimination, she cannot be compelled to be a witness by the court.
International Law
The European Convention on Human Rights article 6 section 2 provides for the right of non-self-incrimination. The right of non-self-incrimination includes the right to remain silent and the presumption of innocence. The European Convention on Human Rights includes the right to non-self-incrimination to project defendants from improper compulsion, reducing the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.[ Stefan Lorenzmeier, The Right to a Fair Trial in Europe?--Procedural Guarantees Under the European Convention on Human Rights, Journal of the Institute of Justice and International Studies 40, 46 (2007).]
Country Specific Examples:
United States.
A criminal defendant has the right to non-self-incrimination at trial. This right comes from the 5th Amendment's right to remain silent. [Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 6 (1964) (extending the 5th Amendment's protection against compulsory self-incrimination in court extends to the states through the 14th Amendment).] In addition to protecting the defendant from forced testimony, the 5th Amendment also protects the defendant from having the defendant's silence used as evidence of guilt. [Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965) (‘We take that in its literal sense and hold that the Fifth Amendment, in its direct application to the Federal Government and in its bearing on the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids either comment by the prosecution on the accused's silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt.’).]
Kenya.
A defendant in criminal proceedings has the right to refuse to give testimony that would incriminate him / her in the present trial or a subsequent trial. If questions seeking to elicit incriminating evidence are raised during trial, counsel for the accused must raise timely objections to prevent any response that may have a prejudicial effect against the defendant.”
Bandingkan dengan uraian yang lebih terperinci dari https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution :
“The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being forced to incriminate themselves. Incriminating oneself is defined as exposing oneself (or another person) to ‘an accusation or charge of crime’, or as involving oneself (or another person) ‘in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof.’ The privilege against compelled self-incrimination is defined as ‘the constitutional right of a person to refuse to answer questions or otherwise give testimony against himself...’. To ‘plead the Fifth’ is to refuse to answer any question because ‘the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked’ lead a claimant to possess a ‘reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer’, believing that ‘a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.’
Historically, the legal protection against compelled self-incrimination was directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.
The legal shift away from widespread use of torture and forced confession dates to turmoil of the late 16th and early 17th century in England. Anyone refusing to take the oath ex officio mero (confessions or swearing of innocence, usually before hearing any charges) was considered guilty. Suspected Puritans were pressed to take the oath and then reveal names of other Puritans. Coercion and torture were commonly used to compel ‘cooperation’.
Puritans, who were at the time fleeing to the New World, began a practice of refusing to cooperate with interrogations. In the most famous case John Lilburne refused to take the oath in 1637. His case and his call for ‘freeborn rights’ were rallying points for reforms against forced oaths, forced self-incrimination, and other kinds of coercion. Oliver Cromwell's revolution overturned the practice and incorporated protections, in response to a popular group of English citizens known as the Levellers. The Levellers presented The Humble Petition of Many Thousands to Parliament in 1647 with 13 demands, the third of which was the right against self-incrimination in criminal cases. These protections were brought to America by Puritans, and were later incorporated into the United States Constitution through the Bill of Rights.
Protection against compelled self-incrimination is implicit in the Miranda rights statement, which protects the ‘right to remain silent’. This amendment is also similar to Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other Commonwealth of Nations countries like Australia and New Zealand, the right to silence of the accused both during questioning and at trial is regarded as an important right inherited from common law, and is protected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and in Australia through various federal and state acts and codes governing the criminal justice system.
In South African law the right to silence originating from English common law has been entrenched in Section 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
The Supreme Court has held that ‘a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.’
However, Professor James Duane of the Regent University School of Law argues that the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in Salinas v. Texas, significantly weakened the privilege, saying ‘our choice to use the Fifth Amendment privilege can be used against you at trial depending exactly how and where you do it.’ [Note Penulis: simak uraian dibagian penutup artikel ini untuk lebih jelasnya.]
In the Salinas case, justices Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy held that ‘the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to defendants who simply decide to remain mute during questioning. Long-standing judicial precedent has held that any witness who desires protection against self-incrimination must explicitly claim that protection.’
Justice Thomas, siding with Alito, Roberts and Kennedy, in a separate opinion, held that, ‘Salinas' Fifth Amendment privilege would not have been applicable even if invoked because the prosecutor's testimony regarding his silence did not compel Salinas to give self-incriminating testimony.’ Justice Antonin Scalia joined Thomas' opinion.” [Note Penulis: dilematika demikian kemudian membuat prinsip non self incrimination maupun Miranda Rule, menjadi mulai tampak ambiguistasnya ketika diimplementasi secara “hitam-putih”.]
Secara umum, prinsip non self incrimination memang masih belum diimplementasi oleh stelsel pemidanaan di Indonesia, terbukti masih kerap penulis jumpai putusan Mahkamah Agung RI yang mengkriminalisasi seorang terdakwa berdasarkan self-incrimination. Secara lebih aplikatif dapat kita simak praktik perbandingan hukum dengan negara lain dalam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination#United_States_law)
“Self-incrimination is the act of exposing oneself generally, by making a statement ‘to an accusation or charge of crime; to involve oneself or another [person] in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof.’ Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; or indirectly, when information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed voluntarily without pressure from another person.
In many legal systems, accused criminals cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves—they may choose to speak to police or other authorities, but they cannot be punished for refusing to do so.
Canadian law.
In Canada, similar rights exist pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 11 of the Charter provides that one cannot be compelled to be a witness in a proceeding against oneself. Section 11 (c) states: ‘Any person charged with an offence has the right … c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence…’
An important distinction in Canadian law is that this does not apply to a person who is not charged in the case in question. A person issued subpoena, who is not charged in respect of the offence being considered, must give testimony. However, this testimony cannot later be used against the person in another case. Section 13 of the Charter states: ‘A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.’
Historically, in Canadian common law, witnesses could refuse to give testimony that would self-incriminate. However, section 5 (1) of the Canada Evidence Act eliminated that absolute common law privilege by instead compelling witnesses to testify. In exchange, section 5 (2) of the same act granted the witnesses immunity from having that evidence used against them in the future except in the case of perjury or impeachment. While these provisions of the Canada Evidence Act are still operational, they have been overtaken in their application by the immunities granted by sections 13 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Chinese law.
After the 1996 amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law, Article 15 states that ‘It shall be strictly prohibited to extort confessions by torture, gather evidence by threat, enticement, deceit, or other illegal means, or force anyone to commit self-incrimination.’ In 2012 the law was also re-amended to strengthen the human rights protection of criminal suspects. China has since recognized the right against self-incrimination and forced confessions are prohibited by the law. However in practice as human rights violations in China continues to exists, it is still common practice for police to torture on suspects to obtain forced confessions. China's signatory on United Nations's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1998, also guarantees Chinese citizens the right against self-incrimination, however the treaty has not been ratified in China.
Indian law.
In India, under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, the defendant has the right against self-incrimination, but witnesses are not given the same right.
English and Welsh law.
The right against self-incrimination originated in England and Wales. In countries deriving their laws as an extension of the history of English Common Law, a body of law has grown around the concept of providing individuals with the means to protect themselves from self-incrimination.
Applying to England and Wales the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended the right to silence by allowing inferences to be drawn by the jury in cases where a suspect refuses to explain something, and then later produces an explanation (in other words, the jury is entitled to infer that the accused fabricated the explanation at a later date, as he or she refused to provide the explanation during the time of the police questioning). The jury is also free not to make such an inference.
Scots law.
In Scots criminal and civil law, both common and statute law originated and operate separately from that in England and Wales. In Scots law, the right to silence remains unchanged by the above, and juries' rights to draw inferences are severely curtailed.
United States law.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. Incriminating oneself is defined as exposing oneself to ‘an accusation or charge of crime,’ or as involving oneself ‘in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof.’ The privilege against self-incrimination is ‘[t]he privilege derived from the Fifth Amendment, U.S. Const., and similar provisions in the constitutions of states....[that] requires the government to prove a criminal case against the defendant without the aid of the defendant as a witness against himself....’ To ‘plead the Fifth’ is to refuse to answer a question because the response could form self-incriminating evidence. Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination is directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966) the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. Justice Robert H. Jackson further notes that ‘any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances.’ [Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949)]
Miranda warnings must be given before there is any ‘questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.’ Suspects must be warned, prior to the interrogation, that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them in a court of law, that they have the right to the presence of an attorney, and that, if an attorney cannot be afforded, one will be appointed. Further, only after such warnings are given and understood, may the individual knowingly waive them and agree to answer questions or make a statement. [ Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966)]
Legal definitions and privileges:
Black's Law Dictionary (USA): ‘SELF-INCRIMINATION: Acts or declarations either as testimony at trial or prior to trial by which one implicates himself in a crime. The Fifth Amendment, U.S. Const. as well as provisions in many state constitutions and laws, prohibit the government from requiring a person to be a witness against himself involuntarily or to furnish evidence against himself.’
Barron's Law Dictionary (USA): ‘SELF-INCRIMINATION, PRIVILEGE AGAINST the constitutional right of a person to refuse to answer questions or otherwise give testimony against himself or herself which will subject him or her to an incrimination. This right under the Fifth Amendment (often called simply PLEADING THE FIFTH) is now applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 378 U.S. 1,8, and is applicable in any situation, civil or criminal where the state attempts to compel incriminating testimony.’
Barron's Law Dictionary, p. 434 (2d ed. 1984). Truthful statements by an innocent person. An incriminating statement includes any statement that tends to increase the danger that the person making the statement will be accused, charged or prosecuted – even if the statement is true, and even if the person is innocent of any crime. Thus, even a person who is innocent of any crime who testifies truthfully can be incriminated by that testimony. The United States Supreme Court has stated that the Fifth Amendment privilege:
‘protects the innocent as well as the guilty ... one of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances ... truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth.’ [Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (2001)]
The U.S. Supreme Court has also stated: ‘Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege.’[ Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 426 (1956)]
Namun demikian, bukanlah pilihan cerdas bila seorang terdakwa yang dihadapkan ke persidangan untuk didengar keterangannya (alat bukti “keterangan terdakwa”), memilih untuk hanya “berdiam diri” alias “bungkam”, karena dapat menjadi kontraproduktif bagi kedudukan terdakwa itu sendiri—hakim akan merasa “dipermainkan”, karena harus melontarkan pertanyaan yang sama secara berulang-ulang tanpa mendapat respon.
Bungkam-nya terdakwa, dapat dimaknai sebagai tidak kooperatifnya terdakwa, bahkan dapat dimaknai sebagai “diam artinya setuju dan membenarkan”. Bila prinsip “praduga tidak bersalah” benar-benar hendak kita berlakukan secara konsisten, semestinya seorang terdakwa yang memilih diam dengan cara bungkam terhadap berbagai pertanyaan hakim ataupun interogasi penyidik, maka tidaklah dapat Majelis Hakim dalam putusannya menjadikan “bungkam”-nya seorang terdakwa sebagai “alasan pemberat” hukuman pidana dengan alasan “tidak berterus-terang”, “tidak kooperatif”, “berbelit-belit”, atau bahkan dianggap “diam artinya membenarkan tuduhan jaksa”.
Sekali waktu pernah terjadi, seorang terdakwa pemalsuan identitas yang melakukan pengajuan klaim asuransi jaminan sosial, di hadapan persidangan mengakui bahwa dirinya pernah melakukan hal serupa di waktu lain. Setelah dirinya dijatuhi hukuman, tidak lama berselang pihak Jaksa Penuntut kembali mendakwa dirinya untuk kedua kalinya, namun kali ini untuk perbuatan yang sama namun untuk waktu kejadian (tempus delicti) yang berbeda, hanya saja dasar dakwaan jaksa justru bertopang pada pengakuan sukarela terdakwa saat dijerat tuntutan pidana pertama—yang mungkin tidak disadari sang terdakwa bahwa pengakuan jujurnya akan dapat kembali membuatnya kian terbenam dalam penghukuman pidana.
Bukanlah pihak penyidik ataupun penuntut yang telah bersusah payah menemukan fakta terjadinya tindak pidana, namun berdasarkan pengakuan pribadi terdakwa secara suka-rela. Dalam kasus demikian, keterangan terdakwa telah dijadikan sebagai “alat bukti” secara sempurna, namun secara moril lebih tampak seperti penyalahgunaan kesukarelaan terdakwa untuk mengakui perbuatannya—yang akan menjadi preseden buruk dikemudian hari, bahwasannya seolah mengakui perbuatan melanggar hukum hanya akan merugikan terdakwa itu sendiri dikemudian hari.
Mungkin, terkecuali bila konteksnya ialah seseorang warga secara mandiri menghadap pihak berwajib, mengakui perbuatan kriminilnya, hanya untuk mendapat ketenangan batin dengan “menebus” dosa di penjara, maka tiada asas apapun yang dapat mencegah kesadaran pribadi untuk bertanggung-jawab. Namun, kembali lagi, tanpa alat bukti pendukung yang memadai, kita layak untuk meragukan pengakuan demikian, yang bisa jadi menyembunyikan pelaku yang sebenarnya—sebuah potensi yang tidak pernah tertutup kemungkinannya.
Kendalanya, sistem hukum di Indonesia bahkan tidak memberi hak seorang tersangka untuk diam, karena akan dianggap sebagai melawan perintah aparatur penegak hukum. Seorang terdakwa mungkin akan diberi hak untuk “bungkam”. Namun seseorang yang masih berstatus sebagai seorang tersangka, tidak memiliki keistimewaan demikian. Alhasil, seorang tersangka potensial tetap ditetapkan berstatus sebagai seorang tersangka, alih-alih ditingkatkan statusnya sebagai seorang terdakwa, demi menggali informasi darinya secara ekspolitatif.
…
© Hak Cipta HERY SHIETRA.
Budayakan hidup JUJUR dengan menghargai Jirih Payah, Hak Cipta, Hak Moril, dan Hak Ekonomi Hery Shietra selaku Penulis.