Actus Reus dan Mens Rea dalam Perspektif Pragmatik: Kajian Linguistik Forensik terhadap Kejahatan Berbahasa

Ahmad Hamidi

Abstract


In criminal law evidence mechanisms, actus reus and mens rea are two elements that must be fulfilled. A person suspected of committing a criminal offense cannot be held criminally liable if the element of mens rea is not found in their actions, even if actus reus is present (in certain crimes, legal liability depends on mens rea). This study aims to demonstrate the relevance between actus reus and mens rea in language-based criminal offenses, presented through a forensic linguistic approach. It highlights the role of linguistics in describing and explaining linguistic phenomena structurally and intentionally within the scope of criminal law evidence. The utterance data for this case study were sourced from cases handled by the Polrestabes Bandung. This study employs three main theories, i.e. presupposition, speech acts, and felicity conditions, with additional relevance theory, conversational implicature, and politeness principles. Based on the findings, it can be concluded that a criminal act (actus reus) that lacks malicious intent (mens rea) but arises from negligence (culpa) does not necessarily meet the criteria for prosecution under Article 45(3) of Law No. 19 of 2016 on Information and Electronic Transactions (ITE), as the act is deemed not to fulfill the element of “Setiap Orang yang dengan Sengaja” as stipulated in the article.


Keywords


actus reus, mens rea, language crime, pragmatics, forensic linguistics

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alexander, P. M., & de Luca, K. (2019). The Mens Rea of Sexual Assault: How Jury

Instructions are Getting it Wrong. The Manitoba Law Journal, 42, 39.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts.

Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Brown, P & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.

In E.N. Goody (ed). Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, 56-289.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Campisi, E., & Ӧzyürek, A. (2013). Iconicity as a Communicative Strategy: Recipient

Design in Multimodal Demonstrations for Adults and Children. Journal of

Pragmatics, 47, 1, 14-27.

Cheong, C. W. (2000). The Requirement of Concurrence of “Actus Reus” and "Mens Rea”

in Homicide: Shaiful Edham bin Adam v PP. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 75-

Chesney, E. J. (1938). Concept of Mens Rea in the Criminal Law. Journal of the American

Institute Criminal Law & Criminology, 29, 627.

Gegan, B. E. (1989). More Cases of Depraved Mind Murder: The Problem of Mens Rea. St.

John's Law Review, 64, 429.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. (P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan, Eds.) Syntax and

Semantics, 3, 301-315.

Hong, K. (2018). A New Mens Rea for Rape: More Convictions and Less Punishment.

American Criminal Law Review, 55, 259.

Jacobs, D. (2020). Neither Here Nor There: The Position of the Defence in International

Criminal Tribunals. Dalam Heller, K. J., et. al. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of

International Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kharismadohan, A. (2019). Mens Rea and State Loses on Corruption Cases: An Analysis

of Corruption Court Judgment of Semarang. Journal of Law and Legal Reform, 1(1),

-76.

Kinports, K. (2001). Rape and Force: The Forgotten Mens Rea. Buffalo Criminal Law

Review, 4(2), 755-799.

Lingaas, C. (2020). The Concept of Race in International Criminal Law. New York:

Routledge.

Volume 20 No. 2, September 2024

Mansouri, M. H. & Hosseinzadeh, P. (2019). A Study on the Mens Rea of Murder in the

Four Sunnism Religious Sects. Journal of Economic and Social Research, 18(4), 739-

Power, H. (2003). Towards a Redefinition of the Mens Rea of Rape. Oxford Journal of Legal

Studies, 23(3), 379-404.

Samaha, J. (2014). Criminal Law. Massachusetts: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Sudaryanto. (2016). Metode dan Aneka Teknik Analisis Bahasa. Yogyakarta: Sanata

Dharma University Press.

Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Tiersma, P. M. 1987. “The Language of Defamation.” Texas Law Review, 66(2), 303–350.

Tiersma, P. M., & Solan, L. M. (2012). The Language of Crime. Peter M. Tiersma &

Lawrence M. Solan (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Vandervort, L. (2004). Honest Beliefs, Credible Lies, and Culpable Awareness: Rhetoric,

Inequality, and Mens Rea in Sexual Assault. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 42, 625.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25077/puitika.v20i2.613

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2024 Ahmad Hamidi

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

Puitika | ISSN: 2580-6009 (Online) 

Published by Program Studi Sastra Indonesia, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Andalas
Email: puitika@hum.unand.ac.id

Creative Commons License

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