Tesis

Peran Kedokteran Forensik dan Medikolegal dalam Penilaian Kecakapan Hukum = The Role of Forensic Medicine and Medicolegal in Assessing Legal Capacity.

Latar Belakang: Penilaian kecakapan hukum merupakan aspek krusial dalam upaya perlindungan hak individu dalam sistem peradilan. Di Indonesia, pemeriksaan ini umumnya diminta oleh penyidik, jaksa, atau hakim, dan dilakukan oleh tim multidisipliner yang terdiri dari dokter forensik, psikiater forensik, serta konsultasi dengan ahli lain bila diperlukan, untuk mengevaluasi kapasitas fisik dan mental subjek dalam menjalani wawancara, proses persidangan, atau penahanan. Namun demikian, dalam praktiknya pelaksanaan penilaian ini masih bervariasi akibat ketiadaan pedoman yang baku, yang kemudian menimbulkan perbedaan persepsi antarprofesi serta kekhawatiran potensi dampaknya terhadap hak terperiksa. Tujuan: Menganalisis peran kedokteran forensik dan medikolegal dalam pelaksanaan penilaian kecakapan hukum di Indonesia, berdasarkan praktik hukum dari aspek formil (prosedural) dan materiil (substantif), serta pemahaman terhadap persepsi para pemangku kepentingan. Metode: Penelitian kualitatif ini menggunakan metode Focus Group Discussion (FGD) dengan pihak-pihak yang terlibat dalam penilaian kecakapan hukum. Analisis dilakukan dengan pendekatan grounded theory untuk mengidentifikasi tema-tema yang muncul dan menyusun kerangka konseptual dalam penilaian kecakapan hukum. Hasil: Hasil penelitian menunjukkan adanya perbedaan persepsi antara APH dan dokter pemeriksa terkait penilaian kecakapan hukum. APH cenderung memaknai sebagai konteks pidana dan perdata, sedangkan dokter pemeriksa melihatnya sebagai kelayakan menjalani proses peradilan. Perbedaan juga tampak dalam waktu dilakukan pemeriksaan, di mana APH menilai satu kali pemeriksaan sudah memadai, sementara dokter menekankan perlunya evaluasi berulang mengingat kondisi fisik dan mental manusia yang bersifat dinamis. Selain itu, penilaian fitness to be interviewed pada tersangka/terdakwa seringkali dikesampingkan oleh jaksa bila alat bukti lain dianggap telah mencukupi, dengan alasan adanya pandangan keterangan tersangka/terdakwa memiliki gradasi paling rendah dibandingkan alat bukti lain. Kesimpulan: Kedokteran forensik dan medikolegal memiliki peran strategis dalam penilaian kecakapan hukum yaitu menjembatani aspek hukum dengan cara melakukan pemeriksaan terhadap terperiksa, merekrut dokter pemeriksa ke dalam tim pemeriksa, melakukan analisis hasil pemeriksaan, serta menyusun kesimpulan dan melaporkan hasil penilaian. dan medis hingga pelaporan hasil. Analisis dan penyusunan kesimpulan dilakukan secara kolaboratif dengan psikiater forensik untuk memastikan penilaian yang menyeluruh terhadap kondisi fisik dan mental terperiksa.
Kata kunci: Kecakapan Hukum, Aparat Penegak Hukum, Dokter Pemeriksa


Background: Legal capacity assessment is essential to protect the rights of individuals in the criminal justice system. In Indonesia, it is usually requested by investigators, prosecutors, or judges, and conducted by a multidisciplinary team, consist of forensic physicians, forensic psychiatrists, and consultation with other experts in some cases, who evaluate the examinee’s physical and mental capacity for interviews, trial proceedings, or detention. However, in practice, its implementation remains variable due to absence of the absence of standardized guidelines, leading to differing perceptions among professionals and raising concerns about potential impacts on the rights of the examinee. Objective: To analyze the role of forensic and medicolegal medicine in the implementation of legal capacity assessments in Indonesia, based on legal practices from both procedural and substantive aspect, and the understanding of stakeholders’ perceptions. Methods: This qualitative study employed Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with key stakeholders involved in legal capacity assessments, including participants were selected through purposive sampling based on their experience with legal proceedings involving capacity evaluations. Analysis was conducted using grounded theory to identify emerging themes and develop a conceptual framework in legal capacity assessments. Result: The findings revealed differing perceptions between law enforcement officials and medical examiners regarding legal capacity assessments. Law enforcement tended to interpret it within the context of criminal and civil responsibility, whereas medical examiners viewed it as an evaluation of one’s fitness to undergo legal proceedings. Differences also emerged concerning the timing of assessments; law enforcement considered a single examination sufficient, while medical professionals emphasized the need for repeated evaluations due to the dynamic nature of human physical and mental conditions. Furthermore, the assessment of fitness to be interviewed was often overlooked by prosecutors when other evidence was deemed sufficient, based on the belief that a suspect’s or defendant’s testimony carries the least evidentiary weight. Both law enforcement and medical examiners faced practical challenges, with impartiality being a shared concern, particularly when the examiner belonged to the same institution as the requesting authority. Conclusion: Forensic and medicolegal doctor play a strategic role in assessing examinee’s legal capacity by bridging legal and medical needs through collaboration with psychiatrists, coordination among examining physicians, comprehensive analysis and reporting of findings.
Keyword: Legal Capacity, Law Enforcement Officer, Medical Examiner