PADA KABAR PETANG TV ONE 26 JANUARI 2016 Dindadari Arum Jati
LANGUAGE EXPERT WITNESS ON THE LAW OF DEFAMATION IN INDONESIA: STUDY FORENSIC LINGUISTICS
11) Die Kisten wurden aufeinander gestapelt. ‘Kotak-kotak itu ditumpuk di atas satu sama lain’. Makna yang digambarkan oleh konstruksi resiprokal 11 adalah hubungan berrantai. Hubugan ini tidak menyatakan timbal balik melainkan satu di atas yang lain.
KESIMPULAN & SARAN
Dari data-data konstruksi resiprokal bahasa Jerman di atas, dapat disimpulkan beberapa hal berikut. 1) Konstruksi resiprokal menggunakan pronomina refleksif sich, uns dan sebagainya sebagai pemarkah resiprokal. 2) Subjek pada konstruksi refleksif harus terdiri atas dua elemen atau lebih. 3) Penggunaan pronomina refleksif dalam beberapa konteks masih menimbulkan makna yang ambigu, oleh karena itu pronomina refleksif dapat disulih dengan satual lingual lain, yaitu einander. 3) Tidak semua konstruksi yang menggunakan pronomina refleksif memiliki makna resiprokal, tergantung pada verba yang digunakan. 4) terdapat berbagai jenis makna hubungan timbal-balik yang menyatakan ‘saling’, antara lain (a) hubungan timbal-balik lemah, (b) hubungan timbal-balik yang terkait dengan kejadian simultan), (c) hubungan timbal-balik kuat, (d) hubungan timbal-balik yang digeneralisasi, (e) hubungan timbal-balik berpasangan, dan (f) hubungan berrantai.
Mengingat terdapat beberapa unsur dalam pembentukan konstruksi refleksif, ada baiknya dikaji jenis verba secara semantis. Hasil kajian tersebut dapat menjawab pertanyaan, jenis-jenis verba apa saja yang diklasifikasikan sebagai refleksif saja, resiprokal saja atau dapat digunakan untuk keduanya.
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Bußmann, Hadumod. 2002. Lexikon der Spracwissenschaft. Stutgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag.
Gast, Volker., Florian Haas. 2008. On Reciprocal And Reflexive Uses Of Anaphores In German And
Other European Languages. Jurnal of Linguistics. Volume 40.
Gross, Harro. 1988. Einführung In Die Germanistische Linguistik. München: Iudium Verlag Häussermann, Ulrich. 1992. Grundgrammatik Deutsch. Wurzburg: Universitätsdruckerei Helbig, Gerald & Joachim Buscha. 2005. Deutsche Grammatik. Berlin: Langenscheidt
König, Ekkehard. 2008. Reciprocal and Refleksives: Theoreticall and Typological Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
Kridalaksana, Harimurti. 2001. Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama
LANGUAGE EXPERT WITNESS ON THE LAW OF DEFAMATION IN INDONESIA: STUDY FORENSIC LINGUISTICS
Endang Sholihatin1, Bambang Yulianto2 dan Kisyani Laksono3
Universitas Negeri Surabaya
endang_sholihatin@yahoo.com/085730484191, bmb_yulianto@yahoo.co.id/081331059760, kisyani44@yahoo.com/08123167348
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study describes the use of information The linguists in the case of defamation. The case of defamation in Indonesia increased since the existence of freedom in democracy and the rapid development of information and communication technology in society. In Indonesia, the cases of defamation through electronic media handled by The Special Criminal Investigation Directorate while performed without electronic media handled by The General Directorate of Criminal Investigation. The victim in the crime of defamation want justice under Indonesian law. Lawsuit complainant (the victim) can be processed further and it may not, depending on the completeness of the evidence, one the language expert witnesses. This study used an qualitative approach. Data were collected from interviews police investigators from 15 Police Resort/Police Resort City in East Java Indonesia. Based on the research, the police investigators in several police agencies such as the Police Resort/Police Resort City, especially in East Java are not always used the descriptions the linguists in handling/settlement to the case of defamation but rather use "conviction" of their own. Based on these descriptions, the expert witnesses concluded that the language in dealing with cases of defamation in East Java is still neglected/excluded when it is absolutely used. There are three suggestions in this study, first suggested to the police investigators, especially in the police institution in East Java and generally throughout Indonesia in order to process the cases of defamation (articles 310, 311, 315 Book of Law Criminal Law and Article 27 paragraph 3 of Law of Information and Electronic Transaction precisely by using a basic/strengthening the language expert witness testimony. This is because the police investigators have limitations in terms of linguistics. Second, it is suggested to the Government of the Republic of Indonesia to establish "linguistic Forensic Agency" as it has developed in the The UK, The USA, Australia, and Canada so that the case can be dealt with appropriately (Ogunsiji and Farinde, 2012). In addition , the presence of the linguistic Forensic Agency , showing neutrality linguists so that linguists working in a professional manner without any intervention from other parties. Third, build a strong partnership between linguists, lawyers, and law enforcement officials.
Keywords: defamation, the language expert witness, forensic linguistics institute INTRODUCTION
In handling cases of defamation (articles 310, 311, 315 the book of the law of criminal law and Article 27 (3) the law of information and electronic transactions number 11 of 2008), the police investigators need information the linguists to explain the language (meaning) disputed based on the science of language. Limited ability of the police investigators in the science of language / linguistics makes the investigators asked for help the linguists. Therefore, the description language experts should be held as true by scientific. Accordingly, such information can be used as the basis for the police investigators process the case further or not defamation complaint.
Defamation oral form is usually found on the speech / greeting someone arguing, grumpy, kidding excessive, and deliberately defame or invade another person's good name in public in order to shame. While the written form of defamation artifacts in writing a person who intentionally insult, humiliate, and slander others such as short message service, whatsapp, face book, instagram, twetter, line, blackberry messenger, posters, print media, billboards, banners, etc.
However, in some police agencies, especially the district police station (polres/polresta) in East Java, there are police investigators who ruled out the role of linguists in handling / settlement to the case of defamation. Some police investigators resolve the case of defamation without the language
expert witnesses but rather based on the "conviction" of their own. If they feel confident that the disputed text including defamation they are process it further, and if they are feel confident that the disputed speech does not include defamation so they do not process it further. One important thing is the action taken by the police investigators with regard to one's fate. Moreover relating to realize fair law enforcement. It is what lies behind this research.
THEORY & METHODOLOGY
According to McMenamin (2002), forensic linguistics is the scientific study of language as applied to forensic purpose and context. This is a new area for the study of linguistics and a new area to be developed rapidly into a modern applied linguistics (McMenamin, 2002). McMenamin (2002), also added that the study of forensic linguistics is one of the many disciplines that thrive in applied linguistics, which refers to the scientific study of language to solve problems forensics. Another opinion was also expressed by matching Shuy (2006: 3), the study of forensic linguistics is the application of linguistic knowledge on legal issues.
Based on the opinion of experts, we can conclude that forensic linguistics is the scientific study of language in the context of the law aimed at solving legal problems. That means the existence of linguistics is important in relation to legal issues.
Linguists have long recognized that the meaning is composed of two types of referential meaning (for example, according to the dictionary definition of formal logic) and the meaning is conveyed (ie not explicitly stated but can be implied or inferred naturally) (Shuy, 2010: 34). Shuy (2010: 61) explains that the meaning is conveyed (conveyed meaning) expressed with words and expressions that are friendly (not vulgar / not rude) but can convey the meaning that goes far beyond the dictionary and the human senses. So the meaning of a word in the dictionary (literally) is not enough to dismantle the existing meaning in the word or phrase. So in this case, the context is quite an important role.
The United States has the Federal Rules of Evidence which states that expert witnesses are those who have the education, training, skills, or experience which is believed to have the expertise and specialized knowledge in a particular field that not everyone can, it can be argued legitimate and personal opinions, which specializes (science, engineering, or other) about the evidence in the scope of his expertise is reliable and legal in terms of the law (Ogunsiji and Farinde, 2012). And their opinion may be regarded as an expert opinion to help find the true facts ".
Based on some of these opinions, concluded that the expert witness is a person who has expertise in a field of science based education, training, skills, or experience that is legal under the law and requested by law enforcement (the police, the judges, the prosecutors) to help make light of a case or find the facts related to the case were there. Related to this research, expert witness language requested by law enforcement (the police, the judges, the prosecutors) to help make light of a case of defamation or find the facts related to the case of defamation. In this case, usually linguists testified against defamation cases relating to disputes language (meaning) in order to be lighter and easier to understand their meaning.
In the book of the law of criminal law (1997), described the criteria / requirements as an expert witness that have specialized expertise in their field, special expertise may be obtained either from formal education or from non-formal education, the future consideration of the judge under consideration hukumnyalah decisive the person can be said to be an expert witness. Additionally, Shinder (2010), revealed the criteria that must be held by an expert witness, namely 1) the degree of higher education or advanced training in a particular field; 2) have a certain specialization; 3) Recognition as a teacher, lecturer, or coach a particular field; 4) Professional License, if it is still valid; 5) Participate as membership in a professional organization; leadership positions in the organization better; 6) Publication of articles, books, or other publications, and it serves as a reviewer. It will be one of the supporters that expert witnesses have long-term experience; 7) technical certification; 8) Awards or recognition from the industry. Thus, not everyone can be used as an expert witness but must meet several requirements / criteria as described above teranrsebut. By doing so, the information given by the expert witness is not misleading, trustworthy, no doubt, can be accounted for
expert witnesses but rather based on the "conviction" of their own. If they feel confident that the disputed text including defamation they are process it further, and if they are feel confident that the disputed speech does not include defamation so they do not process it further. One important thing is the action taken by the police investigators with regard to one's fate. Moreover relating to realize fair law enforcement. It is what lies behind this research.
THEORY & METHODOLOGY
According to McMenamin (2002), forensic linguistics is the scientific study of language as applied to forensic purpose and context. This is a new area for the study of linguistics and a new area to be developed rapidly into a modern applied linguistics (McMenamin, 2002). McMenamin (2002), also added that the study of forensic linguistics is one of the many disciplines that thrive in applied linguistics, which refers to the scientific study of language to solve problems forensics. Another opinion was also expressed by matching Shuy (2006: 3), the study of forensic linguistics is the application of linguistic knowledge on legal issues.
Based on the opinion of experts, we can conclude that forensic linguistics is the scientific study of language in the context of the law aimed at solving legal problems. That means the existence of linguistics is important in relation to legal issues.
Linguists have long recognized that the meaning is composed of two types of referential meaning (for example, according to the dictionary definition of formal logic) and the meaning is conveyed (ie not explicitly stated but can be implied or inferred naturally) (Shuy, 2010: 34). Shuy (2010: 61) explains that the meaning is conveyed (conveyed meaning) expressed with words and expressions that are friendly (not vulgar / not rude) but can convey the meaning that goes far beyond the dictionary and the human senses. So the meaning of a word in the dictionary (literally) is not enough to dismantle the existing meaning in the word or phrase. So in this case, the context is quite an important role.
The United States has the Federal Rules of Evidence which states that expert witnesses are those who have the education, training, skills, or experience which is believed to have the expertise and specialized knowledge in a particular field that not everyone can, it can be argued legitimate and personal opinions, which specializes (science, engineering, or other) about the evidence in the scope of his expertise is reliable and legal in terms of the law (Ogunsiji and Farinde, 2012). And their opinion may be regarded as an expert opinion to help find the true facts ".
Based on some of these opinions, concluded that the expert witness is a person who has expertise in a field of science based education, training, skills, or experience that is legal under the law and requested by law enforcement (the police, the judges, the prosecutors) to help make light of a case or find the facts related to the case were there. Related to this research, expert witness language requested by law enforcement (the police, the judges, the prosecutors) to help make light of a case of defamation or find the facts related to the case of defamation. In this case, usually linguists testified against defamation cases relating to disputes language (meaning) in order to be lighter and easier to understand their meaning.
In the book of the law of criminal law (1997), described the criteria / requirements as an expert witness that have specialized expertise in their field, special expertise may be obtained either from formal education or from non-formal education, the future consideration of the judge under consideration hukumnyalah decisive the person can be said to be an expert witness. Additionally, Shinder (2010), revealed the criteria that must be held by an expert witness, namely 1) the degree of higher education or advanced training in a particular field; 2) have a certain specialization; 3) Recognition as a teacher, lecturer, or coach a particular field; 4) Professional License, if it is still valid; 5) Participate as membership in a professional organization; leadership positions in the organization better; 6) Publication of articles, books, or other publications, and it serves as a reviewer. It will be one of the supporters that expert witnesses have long-term experience; 7) technical certification; 8) Awards or recognition from the industry. Thus, not everyone can be used as an expert witness but must meet several requirements / criteria as described above teranrsebut. By doing so, the information given by the expert witness is not misleading, trustworthy, no doubt, can be accounted for
by the science, so that law enforcement agencies (police, judges, prosecutors) can cut with the appropriate action without hesitation.
In Indonesia, the position of a language expert witness on completion defamation court case legally stipulated in the book of the law of criminal law and the law of information and electronic transactions. In Indonesian legal system, including the valid evidence (Article 184 paragraph [1] the book of the law of criminal law) is the testimony of witnesses; expert testimony; letter; instructions; and the testimony of the defendant. Based on the above, it is clear that the statement of the experts (language) in the case of defamation constitute valid evidence. Status of expert witnesses is also regulated in the Law on Information and Electronic Transactions Article 43 paragraph 5 points "h" which reads "The investigator is authorized to request expert assistance needed in the investigation of offenses under this Act". Relating to defamation, experts within the meaning of these laws one of which is a linguist (linguist).
Shuy (2010: 29), found a linguist has the potential to help the law in interpreting the language linguistically that is not understood by law enforcement officials were then used as the basis for deciding legal disputes, in this case of defamation. In connection with a case of defamation the Shuy (2010: 30), add the conceptualization which confirms that law enforcement officials (lawyers) see the cases handled by using a legal perspective, on the other hand the existence of a linguist to see problems from the aspects of language according to their expertise. Emphasis professionalism in resolving the case law relating to defamation requires cooperation between the law (lawyers) with linguists (linguist) in deciding a dispute language / meaning.
This study used a qualitative approach. The data in this study a text interviews with police investigators on matters relating to criminal defamation whether they are sourced from police agencies such as Police, Police Resort, Dan Police Resort in East Java. Data were collected from interviews police investigators from 15 Police Resort/Police Resort City in East Java Indonesia. The data analysis using qualitative analysis interactive model.
FINDING & DISCUSSION
From the research, it was discovered two cases were dismissed defamation investigation because investigators "believe" that the language / word disputed uncharged defamation. More details can be observed in the following descriptions.
a) First, a case of defamation lodged by a citizen (B) in the L1 as B felt insulted and humiliated in front of everyone by Person A with the words, "Jancuk you", with a loud tone. An investigator in the police station L1 stop the investigation, explaining that the jancuk word has no meaning and include words commonly / accustomed to use in everyday life so as not charged defamation.
What matters more is the legal action taken by the investigator. The investigator did not ask for expert testimony because he thought that the word was not charged jancuk defamation. Finally, the investigators believe the judge dismissed the complaint B the investigation.
Keep in mind, said jancuk including profanity / invective that has meaning bedded / fucked (Sholihatin, 2009: 97). Jancuk have basic word ancuk then got awaln be that eventually became dammit, dancuk, jancuk. Jancuk profanity used to express emotions both happy and not happy. Happy expressions generally disclosed at the time joking and showing in an atmosphere of intimacy / friendship. While not pleased expression is usually expressed in a moment of anger, hate, hurt functioning cussing and degrading hearer. Thus, words spoken jancuk A to B and then by B complained to the police L1 includes word-laden defamation because the word is used Si A for cursing and degrading / insulting B in front of people.
b) Secondly, the case of defamation complaint by a local official (B) in the L2 because B feel maligned and humiliated in front of people (members of the meeting) by A with the words, "You're also cheating." At the time of B chaired the meeting, there was a member (Person A) who spoke up and said that B affair. It was done in front of members meeting attended by nine people.
In this case a police investigator stop the process of investigation on the case. The investigators assume that defame and embarrass people, including the crime of defamation if done in public places such as markets, malls, amusement parks, recreational areas, and so on. While the meeting is not a public forum because they can not be accessed by the public. In other words, only
certain people concerned are able / allowed into the meeting room. On the other hand, the law of criminal law Article 315 mentioned each insult intentionally that is not slander or libel committed against a person, whether in public, orally or in writing, well in advance of it's own with oral or deed, or by letter sent stau are received by him, threatened with humiliation lightly with a maximum imprisonment of four months and two weeks or a maximum fine of four thousand five hundred rupiah.
The important thing in this case is a legal action taken by the investigator L2. The investigator did not ask for expert testimony because he interprets the forum meeting is not a public place so that the words are accused of cheating A to B does not include the crime of defamation. Finally, the investigators believe the judge dismissed the complaint investigation
Please note, that in articles 310, 311, and 315 the book of the law of criminal law called acts of defamation if done in public. In this case, the investigator considers "public" has a different