Abstract

Pre-trial procedure serves as a control mechanism over the authority of law enforcement officers, particularly in assessing the legality of coercive measures undertaken by investigators. In practice, courts have granted pre-trial applications in several cases and ordered compensation to be paid to applicants. However, a pre-trial decision does not automatically establish the state’s obligation to provide compensation; it must first be proven that the loss is real, measurable, and directly caused by unlawful actions. In general, such compensation is borne by the state through the national budget. Indonesian criminal procedural law does not explicitly regulate mechanisms for imposing compensation liability directly on investigators or other responsible state officials. Nonetheless, outside the criminal procedure framework, state financial law provides a mechanism for holding public officials accountable for losses resulting from negligence through administrative and financial liability systems. This study examines the potential application of cost internalization within the framework of economic and legal analysis to strengthen investigator accountability. By internalizing the costs arising from unlawful investigative actions, the burden of compensation may be shifted, at least partially, from the state to the responsible officials. The findings indicate that cost internalization represents an optimization of accountability, encouraging greater prudence and professionalism among investigators. Therefore, it is recommended that this concept be explicitly regulated in the Draft Criminal Procedure Code to enhance legal protection and institutional responsibility.

There is no Figure or data content available for this article

References

• Calabresi, Guido. The Costs of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis. Yale University Press, 1970.
• Posner, Richard A. Economic Analysis of Law. 9th ed. Wolters Kluwers, 2014.
• Romli Atmasasmita dan Kordat Wibowo. Analisis Ekonomi Mikro tentang Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Jakarta: Prenada Media Group, 2015.
• Shavell, Steven. Foundation of Economic Analysis of Law. Harvard University Press, 2004.
• Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2004 Tentang Perbendaharaan Negara (2004).
• Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 Tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (1981).
• Ayres, I., & Gertner, R. (1989). Filling gaps in incomplete contracts. Yale Law Journal.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/796545
• Baker, T. (1996). On the genealogy of moral hazard. Texas Law Review.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.104838
• Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/259394
• Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing accountability. European Law Journal.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
• Calabresi, G. (1975). Optimal deterrence and accidents. Journal of Legal Studies.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/467539
• Cane, P. (1996). Tort law and economic interests. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/16.3.433
• Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/466560
• Cooter, R., & Ulen, T. (2008). Law and economics. International Review of Law and Economics.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2008.02.001
• Dixit, A. (2002). Incentives and organizations. Journal of Economic Perspectives.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/089533002320951037
• Easterbrook, F. H. (1984). Criminal procedure as a market system. Journal of Legal Studies.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/467736
• Fairgrieve, D. (2003). State liability in comparative perspective. Modern Law Review.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.00443
• Garoupa, N. (1997). The theory of optimal law enforcement. Journal of Economic Surveys.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00035
• Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1764135
• Harlow, C. (1991). State liability. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/11.1.1
• Holmström, B. (1979). Moral hazard and observability. Bell Journal of Economics.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3003320
• Kaplow, L. (1992). Rules versus standards. Duke Law Journal.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1372852
• Kaplow, L., & Shavell, S. (2002). Economic analysis of law. Handbook of Public Economics.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0730(02)80004-6
• Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (1987). Tort law as a regulatory system. Journal of Legal Studies.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/467977
• Mashaw, J. L. (2006). Accountability and institutional design.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.899093
• Miceli, T. J. (2004). The economic approach to law. Journal of Economic Literature.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/002205104773558047
• Norris, R. J. (2017). Assessing compensation statutes for the wrongfully convicted. Crime & Delinquency.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128716674371
• Parisi, F. (2004). Positive, normative and functional schools in law and economics. European Journal of Law and Economics.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EJLE.0000035813.18054.53
• Pigou, A. C. (1932). The economics of welfare.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203712962
• Polinsky, A. M., & Shavell, S. (2000). The economic theory of public enforcement of law. Journal of Economic Literature.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.38.1.45
• Posner, R. A. (1973). An economic approach to legal procedure and judicial administration. Journal of Legal Studies.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/467485
• Shavell, S. (1979). Risk sharing and incentives. Bell Journal of Economics.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3003327
• Shavell, S. (1980). Strict liability versus negligence. Journal of Legal Studies.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/467629
• Shavell, S. (1987). Economic analysis of accident law. Harvard Law Review.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1341027
• Shavell, S. (2004). Foundations of economic analysis of law.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1wxv7k0
• Tirole, J. (1994). The internal organization of government. Oxford Economic Papers.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/46.suppl_1.1
• Westervelt, S. D., & Cook, K. J. (2010). Life after wrongful conviction. Justice Quarterly.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2010.498383
• CNN Indonesia. “Pegi Setiawan Bebas, Ahli Sebut Korban Salah Tangkap Dapat Ganti Rugi.” 8 Juli 2024. https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20240708145332-12-1118853/pegi-setiawan-bebas-ahli-sebut-korban-salah-tangkap-dapat-ganti-rugidiakses 9 Juni 2025.
• Hukumonline. “Polisi Nyatakan Negara Siap Bayar Ganti Rugi buat Dua Pengamen.” https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/polisi-nyatakan-negara-siap-bayar-ganti-rugi-buat-dua-pengamen-lt57aa97495af93/ diakses Mei 2025.
• Mas Hushendar. “Tuntutan Ganti Kerugian Dalam Perkara Praperadilan.” Direktorat Jenderal Badan Peradilan Umum Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia, 29 Juni 2020. https://badilum.mahkamahagung.go.id/artikel-hukum/2990-tuntutan-ganti-kerugian-dalam-perkara-praperadilan.htmldiakses Mei 2025.
• Pengadilan Negeri Salatiga. “Praperadilan.” https://www.pn-salatiga.go.id/2015-06-06-01-33-01/pra-peradilan.html#:~:text=Praperadilan,ayat%201%20huruf%20b%20KUHAPdiakses 9 Juni 2025.
• Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 21/PUU-XXI/Tahun 2014. https://www.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/21_PUU-XII_2014.pdfdiakses Mei 2025.
• Riki Perdana Raya Waruwu. “Praperadilan Pasca 4 Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi.” https://kepaniteraan.mahkamahagung.go.id/images/artikel/Praperadilan%20Pasca%204%20Putusan%20MK.pdf diakses Juni 2025.
• Sekretariat Kabinet Republik Indonesia. “PP No. 38/2016: Kewajiban Pengembalian Kerugian Negara Juga Jadi Beban Ahli Waris Pejabat.” 24 Oktober 2016. https://setkab.go.id/pp-no-382016-kewajiban-pengembalian-kerugian-negara-juga-jadi-beban-ahli-waris-pejabat/diakses Mei 2025.
• Tempo. “Korban Salah Tangkap Polisi Dapat Ganti Rugi Rp 222 Juta, Apa Kasus Oman Abdurohman?” 14 Januari 2024. https://www.tempo.co/politik/korban-salah-tangkap-polisi-dapat-ganti-rugi-rp-222-juta-apa-kasus-oman-abdurohman--98118 diakses 9 Juni 2025.
• Universitas Islam Indonesia. “Ekonomi Islam dalam Mereduksi Moral Hazard.” 20 Agustus 2020. https://www.uii.ac.id/ekonomiislamdalammereduksimoralhazard/#:~:text=Moral%20hazard%20dalam%20ekonomi%20menggambarkan,yang%20menyebabkan%20orang%20lain%20merugi. diakses 11 Juni 2025.

How to Cite This

Article Metrics

Download Statistics

Other Statistics

Copyright and Permissions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with Kosmik Hukum agree to the following terms:

1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Data Availability