Fadhil Muhammad Indiyarto, . (2025) PROBLEMATIKA KEDUDUKAN VISUM ET REPERTUM YANG DIBUAT OLEH DOKTER UMUM. Skripsi thesis, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jakarta.
![[img]](http://repository.upnvj.ac.id/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
Abstrak.pdf Download (241kB) |
|
Text
Awal.pdf Download (714kB) |
|
Text
Bab 1.pdf Restricted to Repository UPNVJ Only Download (318kB) |
|
Text
Bab 2.pdf Restricted to Repository UPNVJ Only Download (316kB) |
|
Text
Bab 3.pdf Restricted to Repository UPNVJ Only Download (265kB) |
|
Text
Bab 4.pdf Restricted to Repository UPNVJ Only Download (376kB) |
|
Text
Bab 5.pdf Download (283kB) |
|
Text
Daftar Pustaka.pdf Download (276kB) |
|
Text
Riwayat Hidup.pdf Restricted to Repository UPNVJ Only Download (181kB) |
|
Text
LAMPIRAN.pdf Restricted to Repository UPNVJ Only Download (1MB) |
|
Text
Hasil Plagiarisme.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (9MB) |
|
Text
ARTIKEL KI.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (446kB) |
Abstract
In criminal offenses against the human body, visum et repertum (VeR) constitutes an essential instrument in criminal evidence. However, in law enforcement practice, normative problems persist concerning the legal standing of VeR formulated by general practitioners, particularly in relation to the classification of evidence under the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP). This study aims to analyze the regulation of VeR under the prevailing legal framework in Indonesia and to examine the evidentiary status of VeR prepared by general practitioners. The research employs a normative legal research method, utilizing a statute approach, conceptual approach, analytical approach, and interpretative approach, supported by primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The findings indicate that, normatively, Article 133 of the KUHAP permits general practitioners to formulate VeR; however, the lack of clarity regarding who may be classified as an expert gives rise to legal uncertainty concerning the evidentiary weight of VeR in court proceedings. Moreover, a narrow interpretation of expert testimony has the potential to diminish the probative value of VeR prepared by general practitioners, despite the fact that such doctors conduct direct examinations and render opinions based on their professional knowledge. This study concludes that general practitioners who formulate VeR should be categorized as experts, particularly as getuige deskundige or experts by experience, so that the VeR they prepare holds an evidentiary status equivalent to VeR formulated by forensic medicine specialists in judicial proceedings. Therefore, it is recommended that the legislature provide explicit normative clarification in the KUHAP regarding the classification of experts and the legal standing of VeR in order to ensure legal certainty, equality of proof, and the protection of the rights of the parties in the criminal justice process.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Skripsi) |
|---|---|
| Additional Information: | [No. Panggil : 2210611184] [Pembimbing : Handar Subhandi Bakhtiar] [Ketua Penguji : Beniharmoni Harefa] [Penguji 1 : Mulyadi] [Penguji 2 : Handar Subhandi Bakhtiar] |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Doctor, Problematic, Visum Et Repertum |
| Subjects: | K Law > K Law (General) |
| Divisions: | Fakultas Hukum > Program Studi Hukum (S1) |
| Depositing User: | FADHIL MUHAMMAD INDIYARTO |
| Date Deposited: | 17 Mar 2026 02:35 |
| Last Modified: | 17 Mar 2026 02:35 |
| URI: | http://repository.upnvj.ac.id/id/eprint/42410 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |