scholarly journals Implementasi Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Anak Melalui Diversi Oleh Jaksa Penuntut Umum

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 228-243
Author(s):  
Ramlah Ramlah ◽  
A Muin Fahmal ◽  
Muhammad Syarief Nuh
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
District Court ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Quantitative Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Case File ◽  
The Public

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.

scholarly journals REKONTRUKSI PASAL 7 AYAT (1), UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 11 TAHUN 2012 TENTANG SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA ANAK, BERBASIS PRINSIP-PRINSIP INDIVIDUALISASI PIDANA DALAM HUKUM ISLAM

Yustitia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-93
Author(s):  
Maemunah Maemunah
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
District Court ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Level 3 ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Protection

Children are a trust and gift from God who has dignity and dignity as a whole human being. In order to safeguard his dignity, the child is entitled to special protection, especially legal protection in the justice system. In realizing the maximum child protection, requires a policy that supports the realization of maximum protection, with the issuance of Law Number 11 Year 2012, concerning the Juvenile Justice System. This is done because Indonesia as a State Party in the Convection of children's rights governing the principle of legal protection against children have an obligation to provide special protection for children in conflict with the law. In Article 7 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Law on the Juvenile Justice System, article 7 (1) At the level of investigation, prosecution and examination of cases of children in the district court must be endeavored Diversion, (2) Diversion as meant in paragraph (1) is carried out in the case of acts crimes committed: (a) are threatened with imprisonment of less than 7 (seven) years and (b) do not constitute repeat offenses. This study intended to examine and analyze the form of legal construction of the Juvenile Justice System specifically implementing diversion for victims with demands of less than 7 years. The research method uses a statutory approach, a case approach, and a comparative approach to the number of cases by reviewing and analyzing legislation, journals, cases, data and direct interviews. According to the results of the study, it is found that the implementation of legal penal system of the Juvenile Justice System (1) child cases is increasing, (2) diversion is carried out since the investigation up to the court, and there are still many that are done at a higher level, (3) have an understanding, that diversion must be sought, has a meaning that can be done at various levels so that diversion occurs at several levels, and often occurs at the Court level.

scholarly journals Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Anak Sebagai Perantara Narkotika (Study Putusan No.14/Pid.Sus Anak.2015/PN.Dps)

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-199
Author(s):  
Rezky Ayu Saraswati ◽  
I Nyoman Sujana ◽  
Diah Gayatri Sudibya
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
District Court ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Moment

The rise of drug trafficking involving children as narcotics couriers is a problem that needs serious attention from both the government, law enforcement and the community. Children who commit crimes must continue to obtain legal protection in the best interests of the child. Child protection is contained in Law number 11 of 2012 concerning the juvenile justice system, where at the moment children can become narcotics abuse even as narcotics brokers with the rampant abuse of narcotics for all circles both in Indonesia and in the international world. The formulation of the problem raised is how is the basis for judges' consideration in imposing criminal sanctions on children as intermediaries for narcotics? And what is the legal protection of children as an intermediary for narcotics? The problems to be discussed will be examined based on normative perspectives and the legislative approach to the decisions of the Denpasar District Court No. 14 / Pid.Sus Anak / 2015 / PN. Dps, that the judge considers that the accused child has committed narcotics crimes by being charged Law number 35 of 2009 concerning narcotics, which can be sentenced to a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 20 years and can be subject to fines. Legal protection for children is carried out by judges by imposing criminal training on employment in a generation of Indonesian foundations, solely so that children can carry out their activities as usual when they return to the community and do not disturb their psychic rights and can increase their skills in children. The child does not return to committing a crime.

RACE, CRIMINAL INJUSTICE FRAMES, AND THE LEGITIMATION OF CARCERAL INEQUALITY AS A SOCIAL PROBLEM

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 577-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin T. Pickett ◽  
Stephanie Bontrager Ryon
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Social Problem ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
Conflict Theory ◽  
Caste System ◽  
Policy Frames ◽  
The Public ◽  
Group Position

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.

scholarly journals THE POSITION AND THE ROLES OF THE ADVISOR OF THE COURT FOR CHILDREN IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN MALAYSIA: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (24) ◽  
pp. 84-103
Author(s):  
Norazla Abdul Wahab ◽  
Nur Zulfah Md Abdul Salam ◽  
Hammad Mohamad Dahalan
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Governance Structure ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Training Requirements ◽  
And Training

The establishment of the Court for Children in the juvenile justice system is to provide legal protection for children. This court consists of a Magistrate and two advisors which one of them is a woman as provided in section 11 (2) of the Child Act 2001. Basically, the role of the advisor of the Court for Children is to advise the Magistrate relating to the orders (punishment) to be imposed on children who are in conflict with the law and to advise the parents or guardians whenever necessary. However, Section 11 of the Child Act 2001 is the only provision as regards the advisor of the Court for Children in Malaysia. There are no other guidelines or regulations on the mechanism of execution of duties of the advisor, its appointments, and training requirements. Thus, this study aims to identify the issues and challenges relating to the position and roles of the advisor. An analysis is made of legal documents and academic journals. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with the Social Welfare Department (JKM), Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development (KPWKM), Legal Affairs Division (BHEUU), Prime Minister Department (JPM), and five Children Court advisors (who are representing the urban and rural areas). The study found that the Children Court advisor was recognized in 1947 via the Juvenile Court Act 1947. However, there are several issues and challenges to be addressed including the jurisdiction, governance structure, a mechanism of execution of duties, appointment criteria, the appointment process, modules, and training for Children Court advisors. The absence of guidelines, specific regulations, or manuals has limited the functions and roles of the Children Court advisor. This study suggests a better legal framework for the Children Court advisors to increase their credibility and professionalism. Thus, they can play an effective role in the juvenile justice system in Malaysia.

scholarly journals Perluasan Pertanggungjawaban Terhadap Tindak Pidana Yang Dilakukan Oleh Anak

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 84-106
Author(s):  
Chairul Bariah ◽  
Mohd Din ◽  
Mujibussalim Mujibussalim
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
District Court ◽  
System State ◽  
Youth Offenders ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Library Research ◽  
The Family

Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2012 tentang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak menyatakan anak yang berkonflik dengan hukum selanjutnya disebut anak yang telah berumur 12 (dua belas) tahun, tetapi belum berumur 18 (delapan belas) tahun yang diduga melakukan tindak pidana. Maka dilihat dari usia anak tersebut haruslah mendapatkan perlakuan yang khusus terhadap anak yang melakukan tidak pidana. Sebagaimana dalamUndang-Undang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak disebutkan bahwa hakim wajib mengupayakan diversi paling lama 7 (tujuh) hari setelah ditetapkan oleh ketua pengadilan negeri sebagai hakim.Padadasarnya konsep pertanggungjawaban dari sebuah perbuatan pidana adalah ditanggung oleh pelakunya tanpa membebani pihak lain yang turut bertanggungjawab, namun dalam hal penyelesaian tindak pidana harus melibatkan pelaku, korban, keluarga pelaku/korban, dan pihak lain yang terkait, sehingga terdapat perluasan konsep pertanggungjawaban pidana. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan dan mengkaji sejauh mana orang tua dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban terhadap tindak pidana yang dilakukan oleh anak dan konsep pertanggungjawaban pidana terhadap orang tua dalam tindak pidana yang dilakukan oleh anak dan apakah ada hubungan antara diversi dengan pertanggungjawaban terhadap orang tua. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian yuridis normatif dengan penelitian hukum kepustakaan.The Act Number 11, 2012 on the Juvenile Justice System state that a child who is in conflictwith the law hereinafter called as a child who ages 12 (twelve) years old, but not yet 18 (eightteen) year of age alleged to have committed a crime. Therefore, it is seen from the age of the child it should be treated specifically for youth offenders, it can be seen from the obligation for the judge to conduct a diversion for the child’s case. As mention in the The Act on Juvenile Justice System that the judge is obliged to conduct a diversion for a maximum of 7 (seven) days after being stipulated by the head of the district court sitting as a judge. Basically, the concept of criminal liability from the criminal act is borne by its perpetrator without burdening the other party responsible, but in the case of the settlement of the crime must involve the perpetrator, the victim, the family of the perpetrator or victim, and other related parties, and hence there is an extension of the concept of criminal liability. This research aims to explain and explore to which extent parents could be held liable for crimes committed by juvenile and the concept of criminal liability of parents towards crimes committed by their childrenand whether there is a relationship between diversion with responsibility to parents.This is doctrinal legal research or library research.

scholarly journals Legal Protection Against Children Being Victims Of Crimes Prosecution Stage In Kudus

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 405
Author(s):  
Dedy Nurjatmiko
Keyword(s):  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Empirical Method ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Child Victims ◽  
The Public ◽  
Survey Results ◽  
The Right ◽  
Depth Interviews

Protection of child victims in law enforcement process is essential to ensure the fairness of the essentials, in addition to criminal punishment to the perpetrators of the crime. This study aims to determine and analyze the consideration Requisitor prosecutors of the State Prosecutor of the case the defendant Child in Kudus of the rights of child victims. The method used in this research is juridical empirical method. Specifications research the authors use the descriptive analysis. Data collected in-depth interviews with the parties involved in research, direct observation and recording of documents. The survey results revealed the consideration of the Public Prosecutor in Requisitor yet fully protect the rights, rights of the victim, such as notifying the right to restitution.Keywords: Protection of Child Victims; Consideration Requisitor Public Prosecutor; �Restitution

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
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Court ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Correctional Facilities ◽  
Juvenile Courts ◽  
The Public ◽  
Criminal Offender ◽  
Case Number

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.

scholarly journals Role Of Prosecutor General Prosecution Of Actors In The Implementation Of Abuse Of Narcotics Crime (Case Study in Magelang District Attorney)

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 445
Author(s):  
Arif Hidayat ◽  
Sri Endah Wahyuningsih
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
District Court ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Drug Abusers ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Case File ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Republic

Prosecutor as one of the law enforcement agencies in Indonesia have a role in the prosecution, it is stipulated in Article 2 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Number 16 of 2004 on the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia. Prosecution is the act of the General Prosecutor for criminal matters delegated authority to the District Court in the case and in the manner set forth in the criminal procedure law to demand that tried and sentenced by the judge at the hearing. Drug abusers are people who use narcotics without authority or unlawfully. This study uses empirical juridical approach with descriptive analytical research specifications, types and sources of data are the primary data by conducting interviews and secondary data by performing a literature study, data analysis method logically and systematically. The results showed that the procedure includes the step prapenuntutan prosecution, prosecution and execution. The role of the public prosecutor in the criminal case handling drug abuse is a public prosecutor. Factors inhibiting the role of the public prosecutor in the prosecution that the case file is not yet complete, the type of drug is not on the list of narcotics, modus operandi vary and calling witnesses when the examination before the court, while the effort to overcome that by making the sharing of information between law enforcement, conduct legal counseling, attended a special training program narcotic crime and Attorney for School.Keywords: Role; Prosecution; Narcotics Abusers.

scholarly journals Penyelesaian Perkara Pidana Anak Melalui Diversi sebagai Bentuk Perlindungan Bagi Anak

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 079-084
Author(s):  
Nurmalawaty Nurmalawaty
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Law Enforcement Officials ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
The Law

Ide Diversi pada awalnya dicanangkan dalam United Nation Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice atau dikenal dengan The Beijing Rules. Diversi merupakan pemberian kewenangan kepada aparat penegak hukum untuk mengambil tindakan atau kebijaksanaan dalam menangani atau menyelesaikan masalah pelanggar anak dengan tidak mengambil jalan formal, misalnya dengan menghentikan atau tidak meneruskan/melepaskan dari proses peradilan pidana. Dengan diundangkan Undang-undang Nomor 11 tahun 2012 tentang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak pada tanggal 30 Juli 2012, dan mulai berlaku 2 tahun kemudian, maka Indonesia secara sah sudah memiliki suatu peraturan yang memberikan perlindungan hukum terhadap anak yang berhadapan dengan hukum dengan salah satu metodenya adalah Diversi. Selanjutnya sebagai Peraturan Pelaksana dikeluarkannya Perma Nomor 4 tahun 2014 tentang Pedoman Pelaksanaan Diversi Dalam Sistem Peradilan Anak, dan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 65 tahun 2015 tantang Pedoman Pelaksanaan Diversi dan Penanganan Anak yang Belum Berumur 12 tahun. Pada prinsipnya Diversi dengan pendekatan keadilan restoratif untuk memberikan jaminan perlindungan hukum terhadap anak yang berhadapan dengan hukum untuk menghindari stigmatisasi terhadap anak serta diharapkan anak dapat kembali ke dalam lingkungan social secara wajar. Keadilan Restoratif adalah suatu proses dimana semua pihak yang terlibat dalam suatu perkara pidana bersama-sama menyelesaikan masalah serta menciptakan suatu kewajaran untuk membuat segala sesuatunya menjadi lebih baik dengan melibatkan korban, anak dan masyarakat dalam upaya mencari solusi memperbaiki dan menentramkan hati dengan tidak berdasaarkan pembalasan.   The idea of Diversion was originally proclaimed in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, otherwise known as The Beijing Rules. Diversion is the granting of authority to law enforcement officials to take action or policy in handling or resolving problems of child offenders by not taking a formal path, for example by stopping or not continuing / releasing from the criminal justice process. With the enactment of Act No. 11 of 2012 concerning the Child Criminal Justice System on 30 July 2012, and entered into force 2 years later, Indonesia has legally established a regulation that provides legal protection for children facing the law, with one of its methods called Diversion. Furthermore, as the Implementing Regulation, the issuance of Supreme Court Regualtion No. 4 of 2014 concerning Guidelines for the Implementation of Diversion in the Juvenile Justice System, and Government Regulation No. 65 of 2015 concerning The Guidelines for the Implementation of Diversion and Handling of Children Under 12 Years Old. In principle, Diversion with a restorative justice approach is to guarantee legal protection for children facing the law to avoid stigmatization of children and it is expected that children can return to the social environment fairly. Restorative Justice is a process where all parties involved in a criminal case together solve a problem and create a fairness to make things better by involving victims, children and the community in an effort to find solutions to improve and reassure by not responding to retaliation.

scholarly journals Criminal Justice System Toward Children With Legal Conflict Seen In Justice Restorative Presfective

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-26
Author(s):  
Brian Septiadi Daud ◽  
Irma Cahyaningtyas
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Whole Process ◽  
The Law ◽  
Laws And Regulations

The criminal justice system of children is very important in the effort to settle cases. Children are gifts of God that are entrusted to be cared for, guarded, and guided for a good future. In article 1 number 1 of Law no. 11 of 2012 states that what is meant by the juvenile justice system is the whole process of resolving cases of children dealing with the law from the investigation stage to the guidance stage after undergoing the crime. The aims of the study were to find out and analyze the juvenile justice system (SPPA) in conflict with the law and to examine the implementation of legal protection against children in conflict with the law based on Law Number 11 of 2012. The research method used to see the arrangement of this arrangement is juridical-normative legal research, this research is research that is attempted with the system reviewing applicable laws and regulations or applied to a particular legal case and concept. The method of collecting legal material with the document method is to collect library research contained in secondary legal materials, then analyzed deductively. The results of this study are to look at the process of the juvenile justice system based on subsystems, components, the process of achieving justice for restorative justice and the process of implementing child protection based on the applicable laws and regulations.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document