Pro-Kontra Vonis Nadiem Makarim, Guru Besar Ilmu Hukum: Hakim Berpegang pada Alat Bukti | ROSI

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.TV - Professor of Law at Al Azhar University, Prof. Suparji Ahmad, believes that the judge's verdict against Nadiem Makarim cannot be separated from the evidence presented by the prosecutor during the trial. According to Suparji, there are pros and cons to the verdict. However, legally, the judge bases the decision on evidence deemed valid and convincing. Suparji stated that the judge assessed that the prosecutor successfully proved the fulfillment of the elements of Article 3 of the Corruption Law, specifically regarding the presence of mens rea, or malicious intent. He explained that the judge considered the series of facts to be interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Furthermore, Suparji stated that the judge also assessed the existence of elements of abuse of authority based on the prosecutor's evidence. Suparji added that the judge also considered elements that benefited the corporation. Regarding state losses, according to Suparji, the judge accepted the prosecutor's calculation results because they were deemed accountable. What do you think? Write your thoughts in the comments section. Watch the full story here:    • [FULL] Nadiem Makarim Divonis 10 Tahun, Te...   #nadiemmakarim #mendikbudristek #korupsi This article can be viewed at: https://www.kompas.tv/talkshow/678539...