KONFLIK KEYAKINAN HAKIM: ANALISIS PERBANDINGAN CONVICTION INTIME DI PRANCIS DAN CONVICTION RAISONNÉE DI PORTUGAL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69714/5r46m803Keywords:
Conviction of Judges, Conviction intime, Conviction RaisonnéeAbstract
The criminal evidence systems in France and Portugal reflect two contrasting approaches in the civil law tradition, namely conviction intime and conviction raisonné. However, the fundamental debate between the two triggers dynamics regarding how the evidentiary system balances judicial independence and transparency. This study aims to analyze the philosophical differences and implications between the two principles. This study uses a normative legal research method with a comparative approach. The data collection method is collected using library research, then analyzed qualitatively and presented descriptively. The results of the study indicate that there is no single approach that can fully meet the needs of flexibility, efficiency, and transparency in criminal evidence. Both conviction intime in France and conviction raisonnée in Portugal present unique advantages and disadvantages, but both can complement each other if applied in a balanced manner.
References
Ambos, K. (2023). Intime Conviction in Germany: Conceptual Foundations, Historical Development and Current Meaning. Quaestio Facti: Revista Internacional Sobre Rezonamiento Probatorio, 4(1), 167-190.
Andress, D. (2020). Dramatic Justice: Trial by Theater in the Age of the French Revolution. The English Historical Review, 135(574), 698-699.
Aryani, E., & Triwanto. (2022). Evaluation of Evidence in Electronic Criminal Case Trials. East Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 1(11), 2791-2802.
Audette, A. P., & Weaver, C. L. (2024). Faith in the Court: Religious Out-Groups and the Perceived Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions. Law & Society Review, 49(4), 999-1022.
Belonosov V. O. (2023). Evidence and Proof Under the French Criminal Procedure. Samara National Research University, 9(4), 62-73.
Bondarenko, O., Dkk. (2023). Principle of Application of the Judge’s Internal Beliefs Under the Conditions of International Rules of Evidence and Corruption Factors. Cuestiones Politicas, 41(77), 714-730.
Budiono, A., Dkk. (2022). Legal Conscience and the Pressure of the Formal Law System. Wisdom, 2(22), 222-233.
Calebresi, S. G. (2021). The Civil Law Legal Tradition: The G-20 Civil Law Countries. New York: Oxford Academic.
Garoupa, N., & Magalhães, P. C. (2021). Public Trust in the European Legal Systems: Independence, Accountability and Awareness. West European Politics, 44(3), 690-713.
Giaro, T. (2021). Medieval Canon Lawyers and European Legal Tradition. A Brief Overview. Review of European and Comparative Law, 47(4), 157-187.
Kadir, Z. K. (2024). Menulis Ulang Keadilan: Bagaimana Doktrin Suppression of Evidence dalam Preseden Amerika Serikat Menata Kembali Prosedur Peradilan Pidana. Jaksa: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Politik, 2(4), 1-18.
Krishnan, S., Dkk. (2021). Evidence Data Preprocessing for Forensic and Legal Analytics. International Journal of Computation Linguistics (IJCL), 12(2), 24-34.
Maegherman, E., Dkk. (2022). Accountability in Legal Decision-Making. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 29(3), 345-363.
Mappaselleng, N. F., & Kadir, Z. K. (2020). Hukum Acara Pidana Adversarial. Yogyakarta: Arti Bumi Intaran.
Moussa, A. F. (2021). Electronic Evidence and Its Authenticity in Forensic Evidence. Moussa Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 11(20), 1-10.
Nakhova, E. A. (2022). The Comparative Analysis of the Law of Evidence in Civil Proceedings in France and Russia. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University, 13(1), 257-270.
Pimentel, D. (2016). Balancing Judicial Independence and Accountability in a Transitional State: The Case of Thailand. Pacific Basic Law Journal, 33(1), 155-186.
Schilling, T. (2016). Legally-Bound Judges in a Constitutional State. ZöR Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht, 71(4), 595-622.
Segundo, H. B., & Machado, R. C. R. (2020). Incoeréncia Entre Fundamentos Usados No Julgamento De Questões Diversas E A Integridade Da Jurisprudência Tributária. Revista Direito Tributário Atual, 45(1), 565-592.
Silva, C. N. D. (2015). A Dimensão Imperial do Espaço Jurídico Português. Formas de Imaginar a Pluralidade nos Espaços Ultramarinos, Séculos XIX e XX, 23(1), 187-205.
Taruffo, M. (2019). Some Remarks About Relative Plausibility. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 23(1-2), 128-133.
