OPENINGGG

GOOD AFTERNOON LECTURERS AND COLLEAGUGES,

TODAY ME AND GHANIES ARE GOING TO PRESENT OUR PAPER THAT
TALKS ABOUT THIS CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE.
WE CHOSE THIS AS THE TITLE COZ WE FELT THAT IT REALLY REPRESENTS
OUR CONCERN ABOUT THIS MATTER
W/O FURTHER ADO LETS MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE

NEXT SLIDE
RECOGNIZE THIS ISSUE?
THE MAKING OF OUR NEW PENAL CODE HAS BEEN A CONTROVERSIAL YET SENSITIVE TOPIC
TO BE DISCUSSED.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF ARGUMENTS HERE AND THERE ABOUT THE GOV IMPOSING
SOME YET QUESTIONABLE REGULATIONS TOWARDS ITS CITIZENS. LIKE THIS ONE ON THE
RIGHT AS U CAN SEE.
HOWEVER, THE MAIN CONCERN IS THAT, WHETHER THIS LAW THAT IS BAKING IN THE
PARLEMENT REALLY RELEVANT WITH OUR CONDITIONS? OR IS IT JUST PURE IDEALISM AND
LACKING IMPLEMENTATION?
THEREFORE TO GIVE SOME IDEA ABOUT OUR CURRENT SITUATION, LETS PULL UP SOME
DATA FOR U GUYS TO SEE!!

NEXT SLIDE
SLIDE GRAPH
So A RECENT COMPARATIVE STUDY was done by the Indonesian Child Protection
Commission in 2013, IT SHOWS THAT 63% of minors had admitED that they had premarital
intercourse before. We all had acknowledged that this number is very serious and even
quite disturbing. And after all of this, we know the function of the law which is a tool for
social control needs to be as relevant as it can to deal with all of the social happenings. But
has it happened yet? Is our criminal code relevant and effective in governing this kind of
situations? Does imposing and criminalizing people for premarital intercourse act relevant
foreseeing the huge number of people that had done it? The government might as well just
penalize half of the population if they decide to still impose this ridiculous article.
After all of this data showing, my colleague ghanies will futher explain our current governing
regulation in addressing this matter.
Over to u nies.

MASUK KE GHANIES

SLIDE RESEARCH QS
After witnessing and considering how HORRIBLE the situation has gotten over the last four
decades, and how ineffective our country's current criminal code is at controlling and
anticipating the consequences AND HOW HUGE the government has failed to change and
develop the law as a social control over the current situation, AS A RESEARCHER
ESPECIALLY IN THE LEGAL SCOPE, IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THE
LAW must be AS RELEVANT AS POSSIBLE AND THE NEED OF SOCIAL
ACCEPTANCE IS VERY IMPORTANT.
Therefore foreseeing all of this situation, we came up with a couple of research qs that can
give us some picture into the role of the legal system in meddling with the burgeoning
number of free sexual encounters, including whether belief or religion influences the
outcome.
1. To what extent does moral absolutism influence one's decision-making when it
comes to forming and influencing public policy?
2. In what ways can the law interfere as a social control mechanism with current socio-
cultural conditions and the relevance of RUU KUHP's content to our current
circumstances?

MASUK KE GHANIES LGI

SLIDE DISCUSSION 1 -> BACA THE RESEARCH QS TRS LANJUT KESLIDE YG QS

In the present era, we are faced with a variety of contentious social issues and events that
force us to consider our own qualities. Our standards really aren't solely dictated by such
influences, whether religious or legal, but instead rely on oneself.

NEXT SLIDE
SO LET ME ASK U GUYS A QUESTION? HOW CAN WE DEEMED OR JUDGE THAT SOMETHING
IS CORRECT?
WHAT DO WE DO?
Would we refer to religion, the law, the society, or to ourselves?
This argument is very important esp when dealing with problems that affects free will
nature, or even how does one justify taking others' freedoms away since it do not always
appear to have a simple answer. This may lead us to speculate how, if at all, we can justify
our value judgments, and whether it is even necessary to discuss moral knowledge in the
context of instituting and influencing public policy.

LET ME ASK U GUYS SOME QS.

Most people would agree that torture is unethical, but why?
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT WE MADE THE RIGHT DECISIONS?
I bet that everyone may have different opinions or believes to my previous qs.
We can see that our individuality INFLUENCES our moral judgment to the point where it it
is never absolute. To be frank moral knowledge arguments or even ethical judgments and
rulings are simply a matter of personal taste. This means that statements like whether or not
premarital sex or cohabitation are morally right or wrong are on par with statements like
whether or not I like pizza which is based on preference based on the person’s individuality.
And one does not have the right to coercively ask others to follow suit.

NEXT SLIDEE
MORAL ABSOLUTISM DEFINITION
Moral absolutism is the belief that one rule must apply to all societies, individuals and
circumstances regardless of the situation, and that certain actions are completely wrong in
themselves regardless of the consequences.

Immanel Kant is a historical and well-known philosopher and absolutist who debates the
justification of morality. Moral absolutists argue that an ethical principle that is morally right
for one society but ethically wrong for another is illogical. They AGREE about which moral
principles are universally applicable. SO THEY ESSENTIALLY GENERALIZE THE
PEOPLE.

NEXT SLIDE
DEBATES OF MORAL ABSOLUTISTS
PEOPLE WHO VOTE BEING A MORAL ABSOLUTIST assert that an ethical norm for
one society is valid for all, and that it would be illogical if an ethical principle were
morally right for one society yet ethically wrong for another.
HOWEVER IN REALITY
OUR CHOICES ARE NEVER ABSOLUTE AND CAN NEVER BE GENERALIZED
Esp for AN INDIVIDUAL'S CHOICE which IS HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY THEIR PERSONAL
BIASES- from their personal beliefs, experiences and observations of social situations.

That is why, one's beliefs may be normatively justified, because people who hold their own
beliefs have a good reason to believe their moral arguments.
However, there are no compelling reasons to coerce other people into adopting another’s
moral stances for much of what we believe, both truthfully and falsely, especially in
lawmaking, where the law substantively should be as accurate and effectively control its
citizens.
It is not wise for one person or group to impose their own understanding on others simply
because they have the ability to do so. That is why it is critical to distinguish between one's
belief and the justification one may have for imposing it on another person, because personal
justification of a belief is relative to individuals.

NEXT SLIDE KE GHANIES

SLIDE DISC 2
Now let’s move on to our final discussion which is the how the law interfer and uses its
social control mechanism in relation with current socio-cultural conditions and the
relevancy of our RUU KUHP's content to our current circumstances"

Ganti slide

Max Weber is a quite famous sociologist where he proposed four different sorts of
rationalization. However, we're going to concentrate on his notion of Substantive and
Formal Rationalization Balance.
substantive rationality is a series of ideals that guide people's daily lives, particularly
in their method selection, where these groups of values can be considered rational if they
are consistent with criteria that are relevant to the current situation. substantive rationality
organises activity into patterns directly on the basis of relevancy according to the past,
present, or potential value postulate.
As opposed of this, formal rationality is a rational calculation based on universally
applied rules, regulations, and laws institutionalized in large-scale structures like
bureaucratic system, contemporary law, and the market system, where the choice of means
to ends is established by these larger structures and their policies and regulation. This
means that all elements must strictly point in the same direction where the higher
institutions would implement strict restrictions that are completely based on the society's
idealism, such as religion, morals, and standards
NEXTT
SLIDE SO WHAT’S THE ACTUAL PROBLEM?
We all know that ideally the law should keep its pace with society and become more
complex as our society evolves. But as society moves forward, we can see that societies now
are more anonymous and diversified. We must acknowledge that as individualist principles
have gained a deeper foothold in modern societies, many traits of this are becoming
incompatible persay to legal control because of their private character.
In the past, people had to figure out these processes from larger value systems like
religion values or cultural traditions, which predetermined the best solutions. We all already
know Weber’s story on how the catholic church imposes a suggestion that humans must work
as hard as possible to ‘glorify God,” with financial gain considered as a religious expression.
These traits still exist in our existing laws today where it tends to neglect individuals'
needs and values. we can see from this phenomenon, formal rationality, such as religious or
moral absolutism, frequently leads to actions that neglect individuals' needs and values,
hinting that substantive reasoning, such as the actual developing requirements of peoples, is
unimportant.
Refering back in our country specifically, we can observe that historical values such as
religious laws and Adat law are blended heavily into our modern state law which influence
the shaping factors of lawmaking and cultural development at the moment of our state
law's formulation. Law should be a solution and also evolve as a solution for the current
issues.
The point is, We can’t solve new ways with old problems!

NEXT SLIDE -> GHANIES

SLIDE PROBLEMATIC ARTICLE

WHAT MAKES IT SAY “PROBLEMATIC?”,

The main concern of this article is in ITS ELUCIDATION IN POINT E THAT PENALIZE "Men and
women who are not bound by marriage THAT have intercourse."

In comparison to what is currently being regulated in Article 284 of the Criminal Code,
where adultery is considered a complaint offense in the Criminal Code Bill, the concept of an
adultery offense has been expanded.

If we refer to the principles of marriage law, we can see that our country uses a monogamist
principle where a marriage should only be done within a woman and a man. So if we want to
make some excuses to permit the government to sentence people who committed the act of
adultery knowing that they are still inties with their spouses, it is still logical foreseeing our
country’s principle of monogamy.
It is already questionable to sentence someone who commits adultery inside public law
instead of marriage law, but sentencing someone who commits intercourse without any
existing marriage ties to jail, as pointed out in point E of the article's elucidation? IT IS
NONSENSE TO SAY!

The audacity to prohibit or regulating one's sexual activity that is private and sensitive within
the realms of public law is unethical, and deviates greatly with the purpose of the Criminal
Code renewal, which is to improve the criminal justice system. Even after the current
Criminal Code is amended, Article 417 of the Draft Criminal Code demonstrates that it still
retains the characteristics of previous laws, where there is no sharp difference among both
principles and norms, also between public and private affairs

NEXT SLIDE – NOW PUT THIS QUESTION IN MIND

ESP when we consider the concept of marriage, we can see that the marriage relationship is
governed by private law, as evidenced by the legal standing of our national marriage law.
But isn’t this sensitive dispute about adultery would be more effective to be resolved
privately between the spouses and third parties involved? Since it would fall squarely within
the realms of private dispute especially with the matters of adultery inside a marriage, rather
than having the dispute itself become a public consumption due to the use of public
carriageways.
Apart from the marital dispute, we must also acknowledge that this article involves to greatly
towards an individual's private relationships with others, which is highly unethical and
illogical, especially given the nature of public law, which is aimed at the general public.

LANJOT SLIDE GHANIES

PRIMARY DATA ANALYSIS SLIDE

Researchers must not rely exclusively on ideas while conducting study on societal
behavior, but must instead rely on EXTENSIVE field evidence based on observation and data
gathering. We cannot, ethically, take into account our own personal biases on the subject. As
a result, we used primary sources BOTH DOMESTICALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY to
further express our group's stance on this topic as part of grasping and understanding the
people's perspective on this legal challenge.

TO GIVE U SOME IDEA OF OUR DATA COLLECTING PROCESSES, WE GAVE THE

RESPONDENT’S QUESTION COLLECTED THROUGH GFORM AS U CAN SEE

SLIDE GANTI KE RESPONDEN

SO WHAT DID OUR RESPONDERS SAY? ARE THEY AGREEING OR ACTUALLY OPPOSES THE
GOV?
GANTI SLIDE.

DOMESTICALLY
WE ASKED THE people several questions about how they would feel about the law
interfering with individuals' personal choices in the context of family or civil lifes

GANTI SLIDE

And we found that almost 2/3s of our DOMESTIC responders were uncomfy with the
idea that the law interfering too much with personal choices, and some even argued that
public law should not interfere with individual's personal life at all. According to one
anonymous respondent who we believe represents the views of other respondents,
 “the purpose of law is to regulate what happens within daily human interactions,
however there are boundaries that should never be crossed, such as an individual's
sex life because then again anyone can believe in what they want.
As a result, we can see from the preceding considerations that society does not agree with the
situation where the law might intervene with private dealings, particularly premarital sex,
which is a personal choice. These responses can pretty much represent the society's
viewpoint, and they also support our previous argument that the perception of the people are
changing.

GANTI SLIDE
Moving on, as the next step in this research and to give the respondent's a larger picture of
how our latest draft of prospective law looks, our group showed them the specific article,
article 417, and asked them about their thoughts about it, as this article is the most
problematic.

Next slide

Our group was taken aback by the results but wasn’t surprised, since 98 percent of the
respondents objected to the content of the laws and even questioned the legality and
efficacy of the legislation's creation.
The respondents further argued that the content of such rules, as well as the sanctions
imposed, were out of date and irrelevant.
Therefore, we can see our previous hypothesis being proven that the current content of the
draft is actually irrelevant with today's situation which was backed up with the negative
response of the respondents towards the content of the law. The respondents felt that such
content should not exist in the first place and that the government as a whole should not
have the authority to regulate these rights.
We quoted one of the respondent’s response that stated:
on quote
“I believe that the provision against premarital sex is unnecessary and a breach of privacy as
well. What is a personal, private matter shall be discussed and resolved in a personal and
private manner as well. I understand that there is a sense of societal control in this
regulation, but I personally think it's a breach of privacy to portray this issue as a public
issue and convict people for having sex out of marriage."

This demonstrates our group's argument that Indonesian national law should be based upon
what is progressing in people's lives in Indonesia, and that personal matters should not be
included in a written law.
Indonesia STILL Currently commercializes idealistic religious or moral principles that are
too subjective and biased, and even glorifies these values rather than highlighting and
addressing current social ills such as premarital intercource, which are straight in front of
their faces.
Policymakers oftenly ignore the impact and effectiveness of the law that has been enacted,
which is prejudiced, and the virtues are no longer functional with people's changing lifestyles.
This is morally wrong because the situations in the past and present are already vastly
different. We can't use old social control mechanisms from the past century to keep up with
the new in our current situation.
The people surveyed believe that the new written law could perhaps embolden
individuals to maintain and make decisions based on their own conscious opinions,
rather than simply being constrained and avoiding government penalties. We believe
that by focusing on the government's preventive-repressive efforts as the lawmaking
party, the law becomes more effective and relevant in controlling modern culture.

NEXT SLIDE GHANIES