{"title":"对滥用毒品重罪儿童的法庭分配分析(案例研究:泗水县法院成立和雅加达西部初审法院两项判决)","authors":"Lie Natania, M. Rahmawati","doi":"10.24912/adigama.v1i2.2911","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Children are the future of mankind, our nation and country. Based on this strategic position, the state and the law must provide special protection for children. However, in finding themselves,in some occasions children can stumble and make mistakes, which unfortunately can be in the form of run-ins with the law. Act Number 11 of Year 2012 regarding the Criminal Justice System for Juvenile presented the concept of diversion, which is an approach to resolve juvenile cases in order to achieve restorative justice. Diversion is the of process diverting child cases out of the usual system of criminal justice. However, diversion cannot be used to resolve all and every child cases. In a case of drug abuse, as seen in the Verdict of Surabaya District Court Number 111/Pid.Sus-Anak/2014/PN.Sby, diversion is attempted to resolve the case. But in two similar cases, namely in the Verdict of West Jakarta District Court Number 47/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/PN.Jkt.Brt and Number 53/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/PN.Jkt.Brt, diversion was not attempted resolve the children in those cases and as stated on the verdict, those children were convicted. Why is there a difference in the resolution of the court against children who committed drug abuse between the Verdict of Surabaya District Court Number 111/Pid.Sus-Anak/2014/PN.Sby, the Verdict of West Jakarta District Court Number 47/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/PN.Jkt.Brt and the Verdict of West Jakarta District Court Number 53/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/PN.Jkt.Brt?","PeriodicalId":206816,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Hukum Adigama","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ANALISIS PENETAPAN PENGADILAN TERHADAP ANAK PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA PENYALAHGUNAAN NARKOTIKA (STUDI KASUS: PENETAPAN PENGADILAN NEGERI SURABAYA DAN 2 (DUA) PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NEGERI JAKARTA BARAT)\",\"authors\":\"Lie Natania, M. Rahmawati\",\"doi\":\"10.24912/adigama.v1i2.2911\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Children are the future of mankind, our nation and country. Based on this strategic position, the state and the law must provide special protection for children. However, in finding themselves,in some occasions children can stumble and make mistakes, which unfortunately can be in the form of run-ins with the law. Act Number 11 of Year 2012 regarding the Criminal Justice System for Juvenile presented the concept of diversion, which is an approach to resolve juvenile cases in order to achieve restorative justice. Diversion is the of process diverting child cases out of the usual system of criminal justice. However, diversion cannot be used to resolve all and every child cases. In a case of drug abuse, as seen in the Verdict of Surabaya District Court Number 111/Pid.Sus-Anak/2014/PN.Sby, diversion is attempted to resolve the case. But in two similar cases, namely in the Verdict of West Jakarta District Court Number 47/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/PN.Jkt.Brt and Number 53/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/PN.Jkt.Brt, diversion was not attempted resolve the children in those cases and as stated on the verdict, those children were convicted. Why is there a difference in the resolution of the court against children who committed drug abuse between the Verdict of Surabaya District Court Number 111/Pid.Sus-Anak/2014/PN.Sby, the Verdict of West Jakarta District Court Number 47/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/PN.Jkt.Brt and the Verdict of West Jakarta District Court Number 53/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/PN.Jkt.Brt?\",\"PeriodicalId\":206816,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Hukum Adigama\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Hukum Adigama\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24912/adigama.v1i2.2911\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Hukum Adigama","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24912/adigama.v1i2.2911","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
儿童是人类的未来,是我们民族和国家的未来。基于这一战略地位,国家和法律必须为儿童提供特殊保护。然而,在寻找自我的过程中,在某些情况下,孩子们会绊倒并犯错误,不幸的是,这些错误可能以触犯法律的形式出现。关于少年刑事司法系统的2012年第11号法案提出了转移的概念,这是解决少年案件以实现恢复性司法的一种方法。转移是指将儿童案件转移到通常的刑事司法系统之外的过程。然而,分流不能用于解决所有儿童案件。如泗水地方法院第111/ id. su - anak /2014/PN号判决书所示,在一个药物滥用案件中。通过转移注意力来解决这个案子。但在两个类似的案件中,即西雅加达地方法院第47号判决书/ pid . su - anak /2017/PN.Jkt。Brt和53号/ pid . su - anak /2017/PN.Jkt。然而,在这些案件中,并没有试图转移儿童的注意力,正如判决书所述,这些儿童被判有罪。为何泗水地方法院第111/ id. su - anak /2014/PN号判决书对滥用药物儿童的判决存在差异?by,西雅加达地方法院第47号判决书/ pid . su - anak /2017/PN.Jkt。Brt和西雅加达地方法院第53号判决/ pid . su - anak /2017/PN.Jkt.Brt?
ANALISIS PENETAPAN PENGADILAN TERHADAP ANAK PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA PENYALAHGUNAAN NARKOTIKA (STUDI KASUS: PENETAPAN PENGADILAN NEGERI SURABAYA DAN 2 (DUA) PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NEGERI JAKARTA BARAT)
Children are the future of mankind, our nation and country. Based on this strategic position, the state and the law must provide special protection for children. However, in finding themselves,in some occasions children can stumble and make mistakes, which unfortunately can be in the form of run-ins with the law. Act Number 11 of Year 2012 regarding the Criminal Justice System for Juvenile presented the concept of diversion, which is an approach to resolve juvenile cases in order to achieve restorative justice. Diversion is the of process diverting child cases out of the usual system of criminal justice. However, diversion cannot be used to resolve all and every child cases. In a case of drug abuse, as seen in the Verdict of Surabaya District Court Number 111/Pid.Sus-Anak/2014/PN.Sby, diversion is attempted to resolve the case. But in two similar cases, namely in the Verdict of West Jakarta District Court Number 47/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/PN.Jkt.Brt and Number 53/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/PN.Jkt.Brt, diversion was not attempted resolve the children in those cases and as stated on the verdict, those children were convicted. Why is there a difference in the resolution of the court against children who committed drug abuse between the Verdict of Surabaya District Court Number 111/Pid.Sus-Anak/2014/PN.Sby, the Verdict of West Jakarta District Court Number 47/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/PN.Jkt.Brt and the Verdict of West Jakarta District Court Number 53/Pid.Sus-Anak/2017/PN.Jkt.Brt?