Abstract: - The economic sector has been severely impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Many criminals used

this notion to avoid being severely sentenced. This study was performed to examine different judges'

perspectives on the handling of criminal cases with economic motives during the Covid-19 pandemic. This

qualitative study regarded the data that were collected through telephone interviews using the Interpretative

Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) as the instrument. The findings show that judges have different perspectives

on the imposing of punishment to criminals who used economic-related excuses. However, this phenomenon is

difficult to control. In order to maintain the professionalism of the judges, judges should be more active in the

trial process and able to identify the obstacles they face, such as the protracted legal process due to the potential

for transmission of the coronavirus in the trial and communication difficulties due to the low quality of the

Received: December 28, 2022. Revised: May 19, 2023. Accepted: June 2, 2023. Published: June 13, 2023.

Covid-19 pandemic has greatly impacted various

sectors, particularly the economy of Indonesia, [1].

The economic impacts of the pandemic have created

uncertainties in the community income, [2]. This

condition has made the community struggle to make

living, [3]. Another issue following the condition is

prisons in order to prevent the spread of the Covid-

19. Other countries have focused on the

improvement of the public safety system, [6]. These

different policies are the forms of responses toward

the social changes during the Covid-19 pandemic.

example, the central government demanded for a

lockdown, but the local government objected to it,

[13].

order to survive. A father stole a phone in order for

his child to participate in online learning. The father

conducted a crime and he was then arrested by the

police, [14]. Based on the investigation, the parents

had to conduct the crime as they were in a difficult

economic situation due to Covid-19 pandemic, [15].

[17]. These types of crimes can be categorized as

crimes with economic motives.

39,320 cases of major crimes occurred in 2019, such

as corruption, fraud, and embezzlement of state

finances which number then decreased in 2020 to

37,097 cases, [18]. Meanwhile, the number of thefts

including motorcycle theft, ordinary theft, and

violent theft reached 78,330 cases in 2019 which

decreased to 73,264 cases in 2020, [18]. Crimes

legitimate reason for not imposing legal sanctions,

[20]. Even they believed that perpetrators should be

given heavier sanctions as they committed the crime

during the pandemic when everyone is in trouble,

[21]. They assume that releasing the perpetrators

from sanction will set a bad precedent for the

existing law enforcement and even increase the

criminal rate as other criminals will use this

economic motive to avoid the punishment, [22].

criminals with economic motives should be given an

apology and released from judge’s sentences,

especially during this pandemic, [26].

and adjust their perspective to the Covid-19

average of 60 minutes each, in which eight main

questions regarding the judge's perspective on crime

cases with economic motives during the pandemic

were asked. Some additional questions were raised

regarding their years of service, experience in

handling economic-motivated crime cases, views on

economic-motivated crimes, views on punishment

for criminals in general and with economic motives

during a pandemic, aspects that need to be

philosophical standing of the judges, [44]. The

direct experience of the judges in the court related to

economic-related crime is also grouped into several

different perspectives. The perspective depends on

the motive of the crime. These differences can be by

observing the process before and after the court

hearing.

relating to the deepest motivation and the value of

the stolen object. In addition, the patterns of the

down the aspects that represented the internal and

internal indicators. Any similar responses were

placed into the same category in four aspects:

mental health, total income, living environment, and

education level. Mental condition and education

level are internal indicators, while total income and

the living environment are external indicators. The

conversations were conducted using audio analysis,

[45]. The researchers had previously checked the

validity of the data by re-listening the interviews

than ten years (senior judges). They believed that

the Covid-19 pandemic is a difficult condition for

everyone that requires everyone to work harder. The

prices of basic needs increase, while the

employment rate is low. Other opinions that often

arise among the respondents are:

with economic motives also applies to both minor

and major crimes. A total of 14 respondents said

that:

advantage of opportunities, such as stealing when

everyone is at home or committing fraud when

everyone is suffering from poor economic

conditions. Moreover, if these crimes occur in large

numbers and include organized criminals, such as

those involved in corruption and narcotics, their

actions will bring significant losses for many

people.

the perpetrator is given a heavier sanction than

Judges who hold this opinion believe that a

deterrent effect can be obtained from imposing

heavy punishment. Although it is difficult to

measure the deterrent effect, judges who hold this

horse with blinders that sees straight ahead, while

ignoring the left and right sides, such as other social

aspects.

before and after Covid-19.

argue that going back to the beginning is a way out

of the existing social interventions for all types of

crime, including crimes with economic motives. The

researcher sees these judges will ignore the social

changes and only refer to written legal provisions.

Such attitude will not give any benefit or cause

losses to the perpetrators.

the sanctions given. The perpetrator will only be

deemed to have committed a crime referenced in the

However, this tends to be detrimental to criminals

with economic motives because the confession that

their crimes were carried out to survive will be

rejected as material for consideration by the judge.

The third group of opinions is the judges who argue

that perpetrators of crimes with economic motives

should be given leniency. Those who answered this

economic instability. Prices of essential goods have

increased, incomes have decreased, unemployment

rate increases, and many workers have been laid off.

This makes it difficult for people to meet individual

or family needs. Criminals confessed that they had

facts about the time and place of the incident should

be conducted. After that, the testimony of the

defendant should be compared to the ones of

witnesses and expert witnesses. This process

requires time and thoroughness on the part of the

judge; therefore, the judge should be active in the

trial.

Compulsory here means that the perpetrators have

no other choice but to commit the crimes to survive

makes the judges more careful in leading the trial to

avoid getting infected. On the other hand,

sometimes, the defendant's health condition is

unknown, primarily when the courts are located in

remote areas, where the difficulty of obtaining

antigen and PCR tests coupled with the public's fear

of carrying out initial tests.

court. According to the judge, the online trial by

teleconference presented often disturbed by

economic-related excuses to avoid sentences. The

judges have various perspectives to respond to this

phenomenon. First, some judge believe that

perpetrators should be given heavier sanctions as

take an active role in exploring material truth,

especially crimes with economic motives, such as

aspects of education level and mental health as

internal factors, and the surrounding environment

and income as the external factors. Furthermore, in

the trial process, the judges often encounter some

perpetrators. They should consider the economic

motives or any motives since the law needs to adjust

to the current social changes that occur in society as

a living law. The assessment of the judges’

performance should also be improved.

[13] A. M. Fauzi, S. Harianto, and M. A. Affandi,

[16] “The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Family Affair,”

[17] T. R. Miller, M. A. Cohen, D. I. Swedler, B.

[20] R. Sarel, Crime and punishment in times of

[21] M. O. Frenkel et al., “The impact of the

[23] Z. Priambudi, S. Pratama, R. P. Mulya

[33] M. Gaboardi, “How Judges Can Think: The

[34] L. Graham, “Values in the Supreme Court:

[36] L. Drabble, K. F. Trocki, B. Salcedo, P. C.

[39] K. Siste et al., “The Impact of Physical

[41] U. S. Court, “Court Role and Structure,”

[42] M.-V. Ciocanel, C. M. Topaz, R. Santorella,