LAW ENFORCEMENT KORUPSI DITINJAU DARI TEORI PROGRESIF, RESPONSIF, DAN REPRESIF
Abstract
Corruption comes from the Latin word Corruptio or Corruptus. Then, appeared in English and French Corruption, in Dutch Korruptie, then in Indonesian as Korupsi. Corruption does violate the principles of justice, because corruption is clearly an act against the law. Law is always identified with justice, because law must reflect justice and at the same time maintain justice. Law as a moral category is similar to justice. The word "justice" is of course also used in the legal sense, in terms of compatibility with positive law, especially compatibility with laws. It's just that what society always demands is justice, not law. Since justice is an irrational ideal, and justice is not the object of knowledge, what is learned in a science is law, even though justice itself is indispensable for human will and action. In this research, the problem formulation is how corruption law enforcement efforts are viewed from the theory of progressive, responsive, and repressive law enforcement. In this study the authors used the library research method (Library Research). This method is carried out by examining library materials or secondary data, which consists of: Primary materials, namely materials that are binding and consist of books, journals, etc. related to the issues discussed and materials. secondary, namely materials that provide explanations for primary materials in the form of articles of research results, or opinions of other legal experts. The result of this research is the Progressive Theory which provides a statement that law is for humans, providing a solution for law enforcement officials in enforcing corruption laws in Indonesia. Considering that the Progressive theory explains that Judges and Prosecutors in carrying out their duties, functions, and authorities must read the text of legislation Progressively, namely "law for the community", and Judges and Prosecutors should not be half-hearted or hesitant in giving reasons in interpret the Law. It's just that it takes decisiveness and cleverness in communicating these reasons, so that it can be accepted by the public. If law order needs to be responsive and not just opportunistic, its institutions need support that is effective in accommodating pressure. In other words, the goal must be both affirmative and critical authority. This is the most problematic aspect of responsive law studies. The main idea of responsive law is legality. That continuity is maintained. However, the ideal of legality should not be confused with regulatory development and procedural formalities. Responsive law has the goal of providing capabilities and facilitating. Thus, although there is potential for responsiveness in a developed legal order, both in the enforcement of corruption laws, the fulfillment of the promise of responsiveness depends on the supportive political context. Responsive law requires a society to have the political capacity to solve its problems, set priorities, and make the necessary commitments. Because responsive law is not a miracle worker in the world of justice. Its achievement depends on the will and resources of the political community. His distinctive contribution is to facilitate public ends and build a self-correcting spirit into the governance process. Meanwhile, the source of repressive law is the demand for cultural conformity. In modern societies, as in ancient societies, shared ownership of the moral code promotes social cohesion and is therefore a source for the maintenance of order. This basic fact underscores the state's concern for "moral enforcement". The responsibility which was initially limited to peace then expanded to include the preservation of values. The criminal law carries an additional burden, in addition to eradicating violence and treason, the criminal law also functions to eradicate attacks on the public consciousness.
