scholarly journals Implementation of Transcendental-Based Juvenile Criminal Sanctions

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-62
Author(s):  
Agatha Jumiati

The development of law in Indonesia is carried out based on the noble values contained in the precepts of Pancasila. These noble values are actually an inseparable part of transcendental values. Transcendental thought is an alternative to answer the failure of the positivistic view in solving legal problems in society. Regarding the implementation of juvenile criminal sanctions which commit criminal acts as regulated by Law number 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System, it turns out that in its regulation it has implemented transcendental values by placing child as noble creatures created by God who must always be guided and protected even though they have been or have committed a mistake or crime. Regulations on diversion, restorative justice, strengthening the role of the correctional center and the types of crimes that are humane are evidence that the implementation of juvenile criminal sanctions in Indonesia has contained transcendental values. Keywords: Implementation of Sanctions, Transcendental, Juvenile Crime 

2011 ◽  
Vol 44 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 301-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Sebba

While this comment primarily addresses the article by Anat Horovitz and Thomas Weigend on human dignity and victims' rights in the German and Israeli criminal process, it begins with a consideration of the role of the victim in other component parts of the criminal justice system, and in particular the substantive criminal law—a topic addressed in other articles included in this issue. There follows a review of the comparative analysis of the victim's role in Germany and Israel put forward by Horovitz and Weigend and a critique of the issues they raise, particularly as to the salience of the victim's procedural role. It is argued here that the victim should have a somewhat more meaningful role than that envisaged by these authors. The comment concludes with a brief consideration of the potential for the advancement of alternative remedies currently neglected by both systems, such as restorative justice.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I Dewa Putu Gede Anom Danujaya

ABSTRACT�Law No. 11 Year 2012 on the Criminal Justice System of Children effective from July 31, 2014 aims to maintain the dignity of the children with a restorative justice approach, in which a child is entitled to special protection, especially the protection of the law in the criminal justice system. Therefore, Criminal Justice System of Children is not only emphasized on the imposition of criminal sanctions for children of criminal acts, but also focused on the idea that the imposition of sanctions is intended as a means to realize the welfare of the child of the perpetrator of the crime.With the birth of Law no. 11 Year 2012 on Child Criminal Justice System is a form of renewal of national law. The concept of punishment that has been imbued by classical flows that prioritizes the punishment of the perpetrator has shifted to the concept of punishment using a more humanistic approach.This humanistic-values-oriented approach calls for the recognition of the principles of criminal individualization in the use of criminal witnesses as a means of crime prevention. Through this approach the use of criminal sanctions against children, not only means the criminal imposed to the offender must be in accordance with civilized humanitarian values, but also must raise awareness of the offender of the value of humanity values and social values in the community.Keyword : criminal, child, invivudualization, humanisticABSTRAKUndang-Undang No. 11 Tahun 2012 tentang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak (SPPA) yang berlaku efektif sejak tanggal 31 Juli 2014 bertujuan untuk menjaga harkat dan martabat anak dengan pendekatan�restorative justice, dimana seorang anak berhak mendapatkan perlindungan khusus, terutama pelindungan hukum dalam sistem peradilan pidana. Oleh karena itu, SPPA tidak hanya ditekankan pada penjatuhan sanksi pidana bagi anak pelaku tindak pidana, melainkan juga difokuskan pada pemikiran bahwa penjatuhan sanksi dimaksudkan sebagai sarana mewujudkan kesejahteraan anak pelaku tindak pidana tersebut.Dengan lahirnya Undang-Undang No. 11 Tahun 2012 tentang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak merupakan suatu bentuk pembaharuan hukum nasional. Konsep pemidanaan yang selama ini dijiwai oleh aliran klasik yang lebih mengutamakan penghukuman terhadap si pelaku telah bergeser kepada konsep pemidanaan yang lebih menggunakan pendekatan humanistik.Pendekatan yang berorientasi pada nilai humanistik ini menghendaki diperhatikannya prinsip-prinsip individualisasi pidana dalam penggunaan saksi-saksi pidana sebagai salah satu sarana penanggulangan kejahatan. Melalui pendekatan ini penggunaan sanksi pidana terhadap anak, tidak hanya berarti pidana yang dikenakan kepada si pelanggar harus sesuai dengan nilai-nilai kemanusian yang beradab, tetapi juga harus membangkitkan kesadaran si pelanggar akan nilai nilai kemanusian dan nilai-nilai pergaulan hidup di masyarakat.Kata kunci : pidana, anak, invivudualisasi,humanistik


Legal Theory ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alon Harel

Criminal sanctions are typically inflicted by the state. The central role of the state in determining the severity of these sanctions and inflicting them requires justification. One justification for state-inflicted sanctions is simply that the state is more likely than other agents to determine accurately what a wrongdoer justly deserves and to inflict a just sanction on those who deserve it. Hence, in principle, the state could be replaced by other agents, for example, private individuals. This hypothesis has given rise to recent calls to reform the state's criminal justice system by introducing privately inflicted sanctions, for example, shaming penalties, private prisons, or private probationary services. This paper challenges this view and argues that the agency of the state is indispensable to criminal sanctions. Privately inflicted sanctions sever the link between the state's judgments concerning the wrongfulness of the action and the appropriateness of the sanction and the infliction of sufferings on the criminal. When a private individual inflicts punishment, she acts on what she and not the state judges to be a justified response to a criminal act. Privately inflicted sanctions for violations of criminal laws are not grounded in the judgments of the appropriate agent, namely the state. It is impermissible on the part of the state to approve, encourage, or initiate the infliction of a sanction (for violating a state-issued prohibition) on an alleged wrongdoer on the basis of a private judgment. Such an approval grants undue weight to the private judgment of the individual who inflicts the sanction.


2003 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Warner ◽  
Jenny Gawlik

Increased recognition of the need for victims of crime to be integrated into the criminal justice system and to receive adequate reparation has led, in a number of jurisdictions, to legislative measures to encourage the greater use of compensation orders. The Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas) (which came into force on 1 August 1998) went further and made compensation orders compulsory for property damage or loss resulting from certain crimes. This article shows that this measure has failed victims and argues that they have been used in the service of other ends. Mandatory compensation orders are a token gesture repackaged as restorative justice to gain public support for the administration of the criminal justice system.Ways in which compensation orders could be made more effective and the possibilities of accommodating restorative compensation into a conventional criminal justice system are explored.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 65
Author(s):  
Rifqi Qowiyul Iman

This paper aims to describe the differences and the position of the legal rules for juvenile crimes between Qanun 6 of 2014 and Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System.  This research is descriptive qualitative research. The results show that Qanun Number 6 of 2014 also regulates criminal sanctions for children, which are normatively regulated in Law Number 11 of 2012. In addition, Qanun, as Aceh Islamic criminal law legalizes canning punishment for children, as well as the double-track system adopted by The Law of Juvenile Criminal Justice System is not explicitly accommodated in Qanun. Qanun at the level of a Regional Regulation is part of the hierarchy of laws and regulations that should be in line with what generally applies at the national level. Law Number 11 of 2006 is being the basis of the authority to make Qanun, as long as there is no court decision invalidates it, Qanun Number 6 of 2014, which is a derivative of Law Number 11 of 2006, can be declared as "lex specialis" of The Juvenile Criminal Justice System law which regulates child crime. However, it does not rule out the possibility that in the future, the judicial review of the article can be conducted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document