Proving Motive In Premeditated Murder Cases

The proof of motive in the crime of premeditated murder plays a crucial role but faces significant challenges due to the absence of a clearly defined motive within Article 340 of the Indonesian Criminal Code, leading to varying interpretations and inconsistent applications of the law. Some judges consider motive as a basis for sentencing, while others do not, resulting in legal uncertainty and concerns over fairness and uniformity in judicial decisions. This research aims to analyze the position of motive proof within the crime of premeditated murder and propose an ideal concept for its future application. Using a normative legal research method with statutory, conceptual, and case study approaches, the findings reveal that the absence of a clear directive regarding motive causes inconsistent judicial practices and undermines legal certainty. The study highlights the need to explicitly incorporate motive as an essential element of proof in Article 340 to enhance fairness and consistency in judicial decisions. It concludes that integrating motive into the legal framework of premeditated murder is critical to ensuring clarity for judicial interpretation, upholding justice, and strengthening the reliability of the legal system.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Asian Journal of Social and Humanities
Published
2025-01-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.59888/ajosh.v3i4.474
Primary Topic
Jury Decision Making Processes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Proving Motive In Premeditated Murder Cases

Kristiawanto Kristiawanto, Muhammad Mustofa, Aturkian Laia
Asian Journal of Social and Humanities
Jury Decision Making Processes
article

Proving Motive In Premeditated Murder Cases

Kristiawanto Kristiawanto, Muhammad Mustofa, Aturkian Laia
article en

Abstract

The proof of motive in the crime of premeditated murder plays a crucial role but faces significant challenges due to the absence of a clearly defined motive within Article 340 of the Indonesian Criminal Code, leading to varying interpretations and inconsistent applications of the law. Some judges consider motive as a basis for sentencing, while others do not, resulting in legal uncertainty and concerns over fairness and uniformity in judicial decisions. This research aims to analyze the position of motive proof within the crime of premeditated murder and propose an ideal concept for its future application. Using a normative legal research method with statutory, conceptual, and case study approaches, the findings reveal that the absence of a clear directive regarding motive causes inconsistent judicial practices and undermines legal certainty. The study highlights the need to explicitly incorporate motive as an essential element of proof in Article 340 to enhance fairness and consistency in judicial decisions. It concludes that integrating motive into the legal framework of premeditated murder is critical to ensuring clarity for judicial interpretation, upholding justice, and strengthening the reliability of the legal system.

Asian Journal of Social and HumanitiesVol. 3(4)
Universitas Jayabaya (ID)
Openalex Percentile: Top 98%
Jury Decision Making Processes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Proving Motive In Premeditated Murder Cases — Kristiawanto Kristiawanto, Muhammad Mustofa, et al. · Asian Journal of Social and Humanities (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS