scholarly journals PEMIDANAAN TERHADAP ANAK SEBAGAI PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA STUDI KASUS PERKARA PIDANA NO. 07/PID-SUS-ANAK/2017/PN.PDG

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 187
Author(s):  
Dewi Elvi Susanti

This study illustrates the basis and consideration of public prosecutors and judges in convicting children as perpetrators of crimes in a letter of claim and decision. There were two issues that would be examined, namely: a) What is the basis and consideration of the Public Prosecutor to file a complaint against the Child as a criminal in a case Number: 07/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/Pn.Pdg, b) What is the basis and consideration of the Judge in making a decision on the Child as a criminal offender in the decision Number: 07/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/Pn.Pdg, To discuss this problem a normative juridical method is used. From the results of the research obtained answers, a) the basis of the public prosecutor to file a claim against a child is Law Number 3 of 1997 concerning the Juvenile Court and Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Justice System, and several Circular of the Indonesian Attorney General, while prosecutor's consideration General filed a claim in court No. 07/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/Pn.Pdg was the fulfillment of the elements of the article being charged, things that incriminate and alleviate children's actions, the condition of parents of children, recommendations of correctional facilities (Bapas), paying attention to the interests of the community, victims and perpetrator; b) the basis of the judge in making a decision in case No. 07/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/Pn.Pdg was Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning the Criminal Justice System of Children and was Law Number 3 of 1997 concerning Juvenile Courts. There were 2 (two) considerations the judge handed down the decision in case No. 07/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/Pn.Pdg are juridical considerations and non-juridical considerations.

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 213-236
Author(s):  
Yodi Nugraha

In the Indonesian criminal justice system, every public prosecutor possesses the authority to cease criminal prosecution in the name of public interest. In contrast, in the Netherland, only the Attorney General (Procureur Generaal) at the Supreme Court has this authority.  This article discusses this authority to cease of terminate criminal prosecution in the name of public interest.  To do this a comparative approach is used in which the ruling of this authority to terminate criminal prosecution as found in the Draft of the Indonesian Criminal Code will be compared against the same regulation and policy used in the Netherlands.  A doctrinal and comparative law approach will be used. One recommendation resulting from this research is the need to re-evaluate the existing procedure and requirement of terminating criminal prosecution in the public interest in the Indonesian context and the introduction of Rechter-Commissaris into the criminal justice system.


1980 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Sarri ◽  
Patrick W. Bradley

Diversion and other alternatives to juvenile court processing are being used increasingly in many countries. Juvenile aid panels were developed and implemented in South Australia as a part of the 1971 revised Juvenile Courts Act. Findings from the study of a five-year cohort of youths pro cessed through the juvenile aid panels and the juvenile court are presented and analyzed. The findings indicate that the rate of reappearance of youths processed through the panels was essentially similar to that of youths processed through the court. Thus, as far as the criterion of re cidivism is concerned, this more benign and less stigmatizing mechanism is at least as effective as court processing. Panels were not successful in removing all minor and status offenders from processing in the court, nor were the numbers of cases processed by the court reduced as a result of the panels. Quite the opposite—the entire juvenile justice system grew rapidly during this five-year period, largely because of increased numbers pro cessed by the panels.


1977 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang L Grichting

The handling of status offenders is reviewed in the context of the historical development of juvenile justice in this country. Discrepancies between the legal code and the actual practice are noted and discussed in the light of present tendencies and likely developments concerning status offenders. On the basis of a nationally representative sample of 1467 juvenile offenders a procedure is developed to estimate the actual number of status offenders committed to public correctional facilities in the nation as a whole and in the 48 contiguous states. These estimates are correlated with a battery of socio-demographic factors. The analysis suggests that the phenomenon of status offenders is mainly a problem of the modern way of life characterized by urbanization, industrialization, and affluence. Some policy recommendations are the natural result of the present analysis. The noble intention of the justice system to exempt minors from the full force of criminal law ironically has resulted in one of the worst legal situations on record (Platt, 1969; Mattick and Aikman, 1969; Sarri, 1974). In 1899 Illinois became the first state to enact a juvenile court act, and within thirty years all but two states had followed suit by drafting special juvenile statutes designed to eliminate formal procedures and stigmatizing labels for minors and to emphasize individual treatment on the basis of parens patriae ideologies. Since the juvenile justice system was intended strictly for the protection and well-being of the youth, neither procedural guidelines nor jurisdictional boundaries were thought necessary for inclusion in juvenile statutes (Levin and Sarri, 1974). The lack of such regulations as well as extensive misconceptions of the goals of the reformers have resulted in a most tragic overreach by the juvenile justice system: the presumed or actual possession of jurisdiction over status offenders (Lemert, 1970). A status offender is commonly defined as a minor who engages in conduct which would not result in a criminal charge if committed by an adult. Typical examples of such conduct are “truancy”, “running away”, “using profanity”, “growing up in idleness”, and “incorrigibility”. These examples make clear that status offenses refer to both violation of specific ordinances and to general character or personality shortcomings and disorders. The indiscriminate handling of status offenders thus not only offends our sense of justice but also invites serious questioning of the efficacy of the present approach to cope with status offenders. In short, an institution designed to protect the most vulnerable population — the nation's youth, that is — has turned into a formal procedure by the system in which “the child is least helped and most abused” (Orlando, 1975). The failure to distinguish between status offenses and violations of penal laws by minors has resulted in jammed pretrial detention centers, inadequate and perfunctory court processing, and oversized correctional facilities crowded with status offenders and serious delinquents (including murderers) together. Thus immeasurable damage is inflicted upon youth at an absolutely forbidding cost to society at large. For these reasons the handling of status offenders should be removed from the juvenile justice system and be entrusted to a special service organization which does not have judicial power over its clients. Recent Supreme Court decisions have begun to move in this direction, 1 but few states thus far have successfully incorporated this development into the juvenile statutes, and no state has fully implemented the rulings issued by the highest court in this land. In this paper an attempt is made (1) to review the statutory distinctions and disposition differences concerning status offenders and juvenile delinquents, (2) to estimate the number of detained status offenders as a percentage of all the youth committed to public correctional facilities, 2 and (3) to examine some structural correlates of the forty-eight contiguous states which might explain the differences in the proportion of status offenders detained in public correctional facilities.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 228-243
Author(s):  
Ramlah Ramlah ◽  
A Muin Fahmal ◽  
Muhammad Syarief Nuh

Penelitian bertujuan menganalisis implementasi perlindungan hukum terhadap anak melalui diversi oleh jaksa penuntut umum. Tipe penelitian ini adalah yuridis empiris, data yang diperoleh penulis dari studi dokumen maupun wawancara dengan pihak yang berkepentingan dalam hal ini pihak Kejaksaan Negeri Makassar, kemudian dilakukan analisis deskriptif kuantitatif. Hasil Penelitian implementasi upaya diversi yang dilakukan oleh Jaksa Penuntut Umum terhadap perkara tindak pidana anak di Kejaksaan Negeri Makassar telah terlaksana dengan baik dari segi prosedural. Pelaksanaan yang dilakukan oleh aparat penegak telah sesuai dengan undang-undang sistem peradilan anak serta Peraturan Jaksa Agung Republik Indonesia. Namun kenyataannya pada pelaksanaan diversi di Kejaksaan Negeri Makassar seringkali dijumpai anak yang mengulangi tindak pidana sehingga Jaksa Penuntut Umum tidak mengupayakan diversi melainkan melimpahkan berkas perkara pada Pengadilan Negeri Makassar, yang mana telah sesuai dengan unsur-unsur pelaksanaan diversi itu sendiri sebagaimana yang diatur dalam Pasal 7 Ayat 2 Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2012 Tentang Sistem Peradilan Anak. Faktor yang menghambat terhadap implementasi perlindungan hukum terhadap anak melalui diversi oleh jaksa penuntut umum antara lain: substansi hukum, struktur hukum dan budaya hukum. This study aims to analyze the implementation of legal protection against children through diversion by the public prosecutor. This type of research is juridical empirical, the data obtained by the author from document studies and interviews with interested parties, in this case the Makassar District Attorney, then carried out a quantitative descriptive analysis. The results of the research on the implementation of diversion efforts carried out by the public prosecutor on child criminal cases at the Makassar District Prosecutor's Office have been carried out well from a procedural perspective. Implementation carried out by the enforcement apparatus is in accordance with the law on the juvenile justice system and the Attorney General's Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia. However, in reality in the implementation of diversion at the Makassar District Prosecutor's Office, there are often children who repeat the crime so that the Public Prosecutor does not seek diversion but instead delegates the case file to the Makassar District Court, which is in accordance with the elements of the diversion implementation itself as regulated in Article 7. Paragraph 2 of Law Number 11 Year 2012 concerning the Juvenile Justice System. Factors that hinder the implementation of legal protection against children through diversion by the public prosecutor include: legal substance, legal structure and legal culture.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 201
Author(s):  
Ellen Yolanda Sinaga

Implementation of diversion by a public prosecutor children, nowadays the mechanism is based on Law of The Republic of Indonesia Number 11 Year 2012 regarding the Juvenile Criminal Justice System. Further provisions concerning the guidelines for the implementation of diversion, ordinances, and coordinate the implementation of diversion stipulated on Indonesian Republic Government Regulation Number 65 in 2015 on the guidelines for the implementation of diversion and treatment of children who are aged 12 years. But the problem until now has not drawn up internal rules to the public prosecutor in the form attorney General of The Republic of Indonesia regulation as the basic for the implementation of the mechanism reffered versioned on Indonesian Republic Government Regulation Number 65 in 2015 on the guidelines for the implementation of diversion and treatment of children who are aged 12 years. The importance of internal rules as the basic for the public prosecutor in the executing diversion, as the uniformity of implementation of the diversion by a public prosecutor children across Indonesia, in order to avoid differences in the implementation mechanisms of diversion, which is still based instruction each child’s direct leadership prosecutor, who do diversion. Further in praction, there are differences in the implementation mechanisms of diversion by a children public prosecutor in Indonesia which resulted in the implementation of the goal of diversion has not been maximally as aspired is to keep children who are dealing with the law, from the adverse effects of the criminal justice system.  Keywords : diversion, juvenile criminal justice system, public prosecutor children


2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-33
Author(s):  
Sara Mogulescu ◽  
Gaspar Caro

This article was originally published by the Vera Institute of Justice in December 2008. Until recently, youth who may be chronically disobedient but not committing crime were frequently referred to juvenile court and subject to the same punitive interventions as youth charged with criminal activity. To better help youth and their families, many status offender systems are implementing immediate, family-focused alternatives to court intervention, first referring at-risk young people and their families to social service programs in their communities and using the juvenile justice system as a last resort. The new paradigm is guided by the belief that given help and support, families have the potential to resolve issues without the courts. This paper highlights successful reforms based on this new paradigm in Connecticut, Florida, and New York.


2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angkasa Angkasa ◽  
Saryono Hanadi ◽  
Muhammad Budi Setyadi

Legal fundament of implementation of restorative justice in the phase investigation of juvenile justice system  in Indonesia stated in article 5 sentence (1) Law No. 8 Year 1981 concerning KUHAP; article 42 Law No. 3 Year 1997 concerning juvenile court, article 16 sentence ( 1) letter (l), sentence (2) and article 18  Law No. 2 Year 2002 concerning Police Department of Republic of Indonesia, Confidential Telegram of Kabareskrim No. Pol. TR/359/DIT,I/VI/2008. Mediation Perpetrator and Victim in the course of Jurisdiction of Child in jurisdiction territory of prison in Purwokerto, in the form of peace among victim and perpetrator of this child, is conducted in inspection phase, is in prosecution phase and inspection of justice have never been conducted by mediation. Implementation of Mediation in case of child in Jurisdiction territory of Bapas Purwokerto, not yet earned a Restorative Justice Model. This Matter is based on fact that goals of this mediation practice tend to only aim to decontrol continuation. Kata kunci: Juvenile Justice System; Restorative Justice Model; Mediation; prison


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 62 (5) ◽  
pp. 697-697
Author(s):  
L. Harris

Today, when some critics of our juvenile-justice system are complaining that the system is incompetent in dealing with violent young criminals, other critics are complaining that it is showing amazing efficiency in locking up—often for long periods—troubled young people who have not been charged with committing any crime, violent or otherwise. Such young people, they point out, represent approximately forty per cent of the hundred thousand-odd children who will be sent to jail this year for at least twenty-four hours and of the twelve thousand who will be placed in juvenile-detention centers every day. These children, who are variously labelled Persons in Need of Supervision (PINS), Children in Need of Supervision (CINS), Juveniles in Need of Supervision (JINS), or Wayward Minors, depending on the state they live in, will be guilty of nothing more serious than being a burden or a nuisance. They are not juvenile criminals—they have committed no act for which an adult could be prosecuted. Mainly, they are children who are truant from school, who have run away from home, or whose parents (the majority of them poor) find them too difficult to manage. Under one name or another, the PINS judicial category is written into the laws of forty-one states, and children who are assigned to it occupy, according to one estimate, as much as forty-one per cent of the case load of juvenile courts.... Underlying all the state statutes [is] the doctrine of parens patriae drawn from English chancery law—that the court could act to resolve the problems of troubled children as if it were a parent.


Author(s):  
Armando Saponaro

This chapter outlines the “conflict” and “peace-keeping” victim-oriented justice paradigms. The latter empowers the victims of crime, putting them at the center of an encounter and using interindividual mediation or collective circles to address conflict resolution. Two models are critically discussed in the conflict victim-oriented justice paradigm. The European continental “visible victim” model structures the role of the victim as a full-fledged processual party together with the public prosecutor and offender. In this model, the victim has the same rights and powers of the defendant. The “invisible victim” common law model views the victim as a trial witness, participating, for example, through a victim impact statement (in the United States) or victim personal statement (in the United Kingdom) at the sentencing stage. The visible victim conflict paradigm model enhances a victim's role and involvement in the criminal justice system, offering a solution to existing controversial and critical common law system issues.


2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 577-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin T. Pickett ◽  
Stephanie Bontrager Ryon

AbstractMichelle Alexander argues that carceral inequality and mass incarceration together have created a “new racial caste system” in America (2010, p. 11). She contends that only a race-conscioussocial movement that engages both legal actors and the public can dismantle this system of racial control. Unfortunately, very little research has examined views about carceral inequality. Little is known about the attitudes of juvenile and criminal justice workers. We build on and integrate three literatures—scholarship on the framing perspective, comparative conflict theory, and group position theory and racial ideology—to develop a theoretical model of attitudes toward carceral inequality. We hypothesize that race influences the resonance of attributional frames, especially criminal injustice frames, but endorsement of these frames represents the primary factor shaping judgments about whether carceral inequality is a social problem (propriety, urgency, severity and policy frames). For several decades, framing efforts have been underway aimed at mobilizing JCJW to reduce racial disparities in the juvenile justice system. And most offenders first have contact with the state as juveniles. Accordingly, to test our theory, we analyze data on views about carceral inequality in the juvenile justice system—or disproportionate minority contact—among a nationwide sample of justice workers (N = 543). The findings show that race is strongly associated with attributional frames about carceral inequality, and is indirectly related, through attributional frames, to endorsement of propriety, urgency, severity, and policy frames about carceral inequality.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document