{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019937694704049845, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.805084745762712, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Judgment of Judge Against Intention in Determining Criminal Responsibility of Corruption’s Perpetrators to Seek Material Truth

Understanding the intention factors in the perpetrators of corruption is an ability that should be possessed by judges to gain or at least approach to material truth. The lack of judges’ knowledge in digging intention influences the quality of judges' decisions. Purposes of research to determine the proportionality of criminal responsibility of perpetrators in the context of seeking material truth. This research used a normative juridical approach, analytical descriptive, secondary and primary data types, data collection through literature study and document study, data analysis, qualitative normative. The judge has assessed intentions as the basis for determining the heaviness of criminal responsibility for perpetrators of corruption through a judgment of mental attitudes andexploration from aspects of A (Attitude Toward Behavior), aspect of B (Subjective Norms) and aspects of C (Perceived Behavior Control). However, realistically, the lowest score judge was not able to consider to what extent the ability and opportunity possessed by a criminal to commit or not commit corruption (aspect C), and a high-scorejudge has also not conducted an optimal exploration yet related to psychological aspects. Judges should consider intentions by using scientific approaches to forensic psychology to analyze intention factors clearly which can help judges seek or at least approach to material truth. Keywords—intention; criminal liability; corruption; material truth