{"title":"对虐待行为行为的儿童责任分析","authors":"I. Nasution","doi":"10.56874/el-ahli.v1i2.72","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTION \nIDRIS \nThe responsibility of a crime is a case that must be responsible by the doer that has done the crime, although the doer is an adult or a child. One of the sample in a decision No. 8/Pid.Sus-Anak/2015/PN.Tjb, the doer is a child, namely Dicky Donatus Situmorang, 17 years old. The defendant has a validity and assured proven in doing desecrate to injustice to someone consciously in doing the desecrate injustice although is known or should be anticipated that the victim is 15 years old. He can not be married, an the doer in consciousness doing a gimmic for doing it. The case in this study is how to arrange the punishment for child as a pretrator in a desecrate injustice, what is the reason factor to a child to do a desecrate injustice and what is the law policy crime for that case no. 8/Pid.Sus-Anak/2015/PN.Tjb. Whatever the decision has fulfil the sense of the justice.The study is done by using yuridis normative and yuridis empire approach. The source of the study is divided into primary and secondary data. The primary data which is gotten from the field research, that is by giving an interview to one of the child judge. In Tanjung Balai. The secondary data is gotten from library research by checking and correcting data , after the data is processed and analysed by using qualitative analysing.Based on the result and solution in the responsibility for child as a Perpetrator in doing a desecrate injustice in the court decision no : 8/Pid.Sus-Anak/2015/PN.Tjb, namely the doer has a validity and insure evident in conducted action against the criminal law , that is section 82 Undang-Undang No 35 Tahun 2014 in child protection. The doer can be gotten the responsibility for the crime that he has done because in case has a fault and fulfil the element in doing injustice.The judge cares about the doer is a child, the regulation which arrange the child regulation, so the judge punished the child 2 years in prison, an 2 months grounding. The decision of the judge is not fulfil the sense of judgement because the judge punished the child 2 years in prison, an 2 months grounding. The suggestion in the research should be given and educated to the family for getting extra action , dont be punished in prison and 2 months grounding. The suggestion, the judge should think norm of the justice for all not only for the victim but also to the doer, and society and decision maker, and law government officer. Key Word : The Responsibility of the Child Crime as A Perpetrator in Doing A Desecrate Injustice. \n \n ","PeriodicalId":217839,"journal":{"name":"El-Ahli : Jurnal Hukum Keluarga Islam","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analisis Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Anak Sebagai Pelaku Tindak Pidana Pencabulan\",\"authors\":\"I. Nasution\",\"doi\":\"10.56874/el-ahli.v1i2.72\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACTION \\nIDRIS \\nThe responsibility of a crime is a case that must be responsible by the doer that has done the crime, although the doer is an adult or a child. One of the sample in a decision No. 8/Pid.Sus-Anak/2015/PN.Tjb, the doer is a child, namely Dicky Donatus Situmorang, 17 years old. The defendant has a validity and assured proven in doing desecrate to injustice to someone consciously in doing the desecrate injustice although is known or should be anticipated that the victim is 15 years old. He can not be married, an the doer in consciousness doing a gimmic for doing it. The case in this study is how to arrange the punishment for child as a pretrator in a desecrate injustice, what is the reason factor to a child to do a desecrate injustice and what is the law policy crime for that case no. 8/Pid.Sus-Anak/2015/PN.Tjb. Whatever the decision has fulfil the sense of the justice.The study is done by using yuridis normative and yuridis empire approach. The source of the study is divided into primary and secondary data. The primary data which is gotten from the field research, that is by giving an interview to one of the child judge. In Tanjung Balai. The secondary data is gotten from library research by checking and correcting data , after the data is processed and analysed by using qualitative analysing.Based on the result and solution in the responsibility for child as a Perpetrator in doing a desecrate injustice in the court decision no : 8/Pid.Sus-Anak/2015/PN.Tjb, namely the doer has a validity and insure evident in conducted action against the criminal law , that is section 82 Undang-Undang No 35 Tahun 2014 in child protection. The doer can be gotten the responsibility for the crime that he has done because in case has a fault and fulfil the element in doing injustice.The judge cares about the doer is a child, the regulation which arrange the child regulation, so the judge punished the child 2 years in prison, an 2 months grounding. The decision of the judge is not fulfil the sense of judgement because the judge punished the child 2 years in prison, an 2 months grounding. The suggestion in the research should be given and educated to the family for getting extra action , dont be punished in prison and 2 months grounding. The suggestion, the judge should think norm of the justice for all not only for the victim but also to the doer, and society and decision maker, and law government officer. Key Word : The Responsibility of the Child Crime as A Perpetrator in Doing A Desecrate Injustice. \\n \\n \",\"PeriodicalId\":217839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"El-Ahli : Jurnal Hukum Keluarga Islam\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"El-Ahli : Jurnal Hukum Keluarga Islam\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56874/el-ahli.v1i2.72\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"El-Ahli : Jurnal Hukum Keluarga Islam","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56874/el-ahli.v1i2.72","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
【摘要】IDRIS犯罪的责任是一个案件,必须由犯罪的行为人负责,尽管行为人是成人还是儿童。第8/ pid . su - anak /2015/PN号决定中的样本之一。Tjb,实施者是个孩子,也就是Dicky Donatus Situmorang, 17岁。被告在故意对某人进行亵渎不公正的行为中具有有效性和保证证明,尽管已知或应该预期受害者是15岁。他不能结婚,而实干者在意识上做着做着的噱头。本研究的案例是如何安排在亵渎的不公正中作为掠夺者的儿童的惩罚,什么是导致儿童做亵渎的不公正的原因,什么是这种情况下的法律政策犯罪?8 / Pid.Sus-Anak / 2015 / PN.Tjb。无论判决是什么,都体现了正义感。本研究采用了尤利迪斯规范法和尤利迪斯帝国法。本研究的资料来源分为一手资料和二手资料。主要的数据是从实地调查中获得的,也就是通过采访一个儿童法官。在丹戎巴莱。二手资料是在对资料进行定性分析和处理后,通过对资料的核对和校正得到的。基于第8/ pid . su - anak /2015/PN号法院判决中关于儿童作为行为人在亵渎性不公正行为中的责任的结果和解决办法。Tjb,即行为人在针对刑法的行为中具有有效性和明显的保险,即2014年Tahun中关于儿童保护的Undang-Undang第35号第82条。行为人在有过错的情况下,可以对其所犯的罪行承担责任,履行不公正的要件。法官关心的是行为人是孩子,安排孩子的规定,所以法官判了孩子入狱2年,禁足2个月。法官的判决并没有达到判决的意义,因为法官判了这个孩子2年监禁,2个月禁足。研究中的建议应该传达给家人,并教育他们采取额外的行动,不要被判入狱和2个月的禁足。建议法官不仅要对受害人,而且要对行为人、对社会、对决策者、对法律官员都要有公正的规范。关键词:儿童犯亵渎不义行为的行为人责任
Analisis Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Anak Sebagai Pelaku Tindak Pidana Pencabulan
ABSTRACTION
IDRIS
The responsibility of a crime is a case that must be responsible by the doer that has done the crime, although the doer is an adult or a child. One of the sample in a decision No. 8/Pid.Sus-Anak/2015/PN.Tjb, the doer is a child, namely Dicky Donatus Situmorang, 17 years old. The defendant has a validity and assured proven in doing desecrate to injustice to someone consciously in doing the desecrate injustice although is known or should be anticipated that the victim is 15 years old. He can not be married, an the doer in consciousness doing a gimmic for doing it. The case in this study is how to arrange the punishment for child as a pretrator in a desecrate injustice, what is the reason factor to a child to do a desecrate injustice and what is the law policy crime for that case no. 8/Pid.Sus-Anak/2015/PN.Tjb. Whatever the decision has fulfil the sense of the justice.The study is done by using yuridis normative and yuridis empire approach. The source of the study is divided into primary and secondary data. The primary data which is gotten from the field research, that is by giving an interview to one of the child judge. In Tanjung Balai. The secondary data is gotten from library research by checking and correcting data , after the data is processed and analysed by using qualitative analysing.Based on the result and solution in the responsibility for child as a Perpetrator in doing a desecrate injustice in the court decision no : 8/Pid.Sus-Anak/2015/PN.Tjb, namely the doer has a validity and insure evident in conducted action against the criminal law , that is section 82 Undang-Undang No 35 Tahun 2014 in child protection. The doer can be gotten the responsibility for the crime that he has done because in case has a fault and fulfil the element in doing injustice.The judge cares about the doer is a child, the regulation which arrange the child regulation, so the judge punished the child 2 years in prison, an 2 months grounding. The decision of the judge is not fulfil the sense of judgement because the judge punished the child 2 years in prison, an 2 months grounding. The suggestion in the research should be given and educated to the family for getting extra action , dont be punished in prison and 2 months grounding. The suggestion, the judge should think norm of the justice for all not only for the victim but also to the doer, and society and decision maker, and law government officer. Key Word : The Responsibility of the Child Crime as A Perpetrator in Doing A Desecrate Injustice.