KOGNISI SOSIAL DALAM PENEGAKAN KUHP 2023 ; IMPLIKASI PERLINDUNGAN HAK ASASI MANUSIA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37631/jrkhm.v4i2.116Keywords:
Bias Kognitif, Kognisi Sosial, Hukum Pidana, HAM, KUHP 2023Abstract
Penelitian ini mengkaji peran kognisi sosial dan risiko bias kognitif dalam proses penegakan hukum pidana di Indonesia dalam kerangka KUHP 2023 dan prinsip hak asasi manusia. Dengan pendekatan yuridis normatif yang diperkaya telaah literatur empiris psikologi forensik, studi ini menelaah bagaimana mekanisme seperti confirmation bias, tunnel vision, halo effect, serta heuristik penilaian memengaruhi penyidikan, pemeriksaan saksi, dan pengambilan keputusan hakim. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa ruang interpretatif yang diberikan KUHP 2023, misalnya dalam penilaian motif, sikap batin, dan keadaan yang memberatkan atau meringankan, berpotensi mengalami distorsi ketika aparat penegak hukum tidak mengendalikan bias kognitif. Dampaknya tidak hanya mengurangi reliabilitas pembuktian tetapi juga berimplikasi pada pelanggaran hak asasi terdakwa, khususnya prinsip peradilan yang adil dan bebas dari diskriminasi. Untuk itu, artikel ini merekomendasikan serangkaian langkah mitigasi berbasis bukti: standardisasi prosedur identifikasi (doubleblind lineup dan pencatatan confidence statement), perekaman audiovisual penuh interogasi, pelatihan antibias untuk penyidik/ jaksa/ hakim, pembatasan teknik interogasi berisiko, serta protokol penulisan pertimbangan putusan yang menuntut evaluasi hipotesis alternatif. Implementasi rekomendasi ini diharapkan memperkuat integritas proses peradilan pidana dan perlindungan HAM di era KUHP 2023
References
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper & Row. https://ia800106.us.archive.org/13/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.273419/2015.273419.Obedience-To.pdf
Arioli, M., Crespi, C., & Canessa, N. (2018). Social cognition through the lens of cognitive and clinical neuroscience. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 4283427. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30302338/
Castrellon, J. J., et al. (2023). Social cognitive processes explain bias in juror decisions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 18(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsac057
Kassin, S. M., et al. (2025). Police-induced confessions, 2.0: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 49(1), 1–??. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000593
Latifah, M., & Hairi, P. J. (2024). Pengaturan pedoman pemidanaan KUHP baru dan implikasinya pada putusan hakim. Jurnal Negara Hukum, 15(2), 42–??.
Lin, W., Strube, M. J., & Roediger III, H. L. (2019). The effects of repeated lineups and delay on eyewitness identification. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0168-1
Wang, X. M., Wong, K. F. E., & Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2010). The roles of rater goals and ratee performance levels in the distortion of performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 555–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018866
Wiraguna, S. A. (2024). Metode normatif dan empiris dalam penelitian hukum: Studi eksploratif di Indonesia. Public Sphere: Jurnal Sosial Politik, Pemerintahan dan Hukum, 3(3), 59–60. https://doi.org/10.59818/jps.v3i3.139.
New York County Lawyers’ Association & American Bar Association. (2003). Report on the electronic recording of police interrogations. NYCLA. https://www.nycla.org/resource/board-report/report-onthe- electronic-recording-of-police-interrogations/National Institute of Justice. (2023, November 28). The impact of false or misleading forensic evidence on wrongful convictions. NIJ. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/impact-false-or-misleading-forensicevidence- wrongful-convictions
Wells, G. L., et al. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads (White paper of the Eyewitness Evidence Subcommittee of the American Psychology–Law Society). Law and Human Behavior. https://web.williams.edu/wpetc/ psychology/Kassin/files/ET.whitepaper.pdf
Strong, S. I. (2015). Writing reasoned decisions and opinions: A guide for novice, experienced, and international judges. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2015(1), 97–??. https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2015/iss1/7/.
New York County Lawyers’ Association & American Bar Association. (2003). Report on the electronic recording of police interrogations. NYCLA. https://www.nycla.org/resource/board-report/report-onthe- electronic-recording-of-police-interrogations/National Institute of Justice. (2023, November 28). The impact of false or misleading forensic evidence onwrongful convictions. NIJ. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/impact-false-or-misleading-forensicevidence-wrongful-convictions
Wells, G. L., et al. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads (White paper of the Eyewitness Evidence Subcommittee of the American Psychology–Law Society). Law and Human Behavior. https://web.williams.edu/wpetc/ psychology/Kassin/files/ET.whitepaper.pdf
Strong, S. I. (2015). Writing reasoned decisions and opinions: A guide for novice, experienced, and international judges. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2015(1), 97–??. https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol2015/iss1/7/
Southern New Hampshire University. (2025, January 3). Forensic psychology degree: Bridging minds and justice. SNHU India blog. https://in.snhu.edu/blogs/forensic-psychology-degree-bridging-minds-andjustice
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hartanto, Daryoko Daryoko, Mikael Inzaghi Sulistya, Muhammad Richo Arrafi, Latifatul Aidilla
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
