Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
https://unramlawreview.unram.ac.id/index.php/ulrev

Articles

Vol. 4 No. 1 (2020): Unram Law Review (Ulrev)

Diversion in the Child Criminal Justice System as an Effort to Implement Restorative Justice

  • Dewi Setyowati
DOI
https://doi.org/10.29303/ulrev.v4i1.108
Submitted
March 10, 2020
Published
2020-04-23

Abstract

The juvenile criminal justice system according to Article 1 of Law Number 11 Year 2012 concerning the Criminal Justice System for Children (hereinafter referred to as SPPA Law) is the whole process of resolving cases of children in conflict with the Law from the investigation stage to the guidance stage after undergoing a crime. The application of SPPA involves many parties consisting of the police, prosecutors, legal advisors, courts, and correctional institutions, and child development. One of the law enforcers (structures) in SPPA that has a significant role is the prosecutor's office. The Prosecutor's Office as the prosecuting body that has been given the authority to solve the problems of children in conflict with the Law (hereinafter referred to as ABH) by using diversion to realize Restorative Justice, as stipulated in the provisions of Article 7 Paragraph 1 of the SPPA Law. What if, in this stage, the diversion was not sought for ABH? What is the form of violations experienced by ABH in the criminal justice system, especially at the prosecution stage? The method used is legal/normative research based on laws and regulations relating to one another. The Indonesian Attorney's Office in the constitutional system, as a body related to judicial authority, with a very dominant function as the dominus litis principle, controls the case process that determines whether a person can be declared a defendant and is submitted to the Court based on legal evidence according to the Law, and as ambtenaar executive implementing the decision and court decisions in criminal cases. The SPPA Law material test is a struggle in the context of maintaining the constitutional rights of law enforcers in their duty and is not intended to reject diversion in handling ABH. This provision is related to the protection of the law enforcement profession guaranteed by the constitution. Even though the Supreme Court has declared article 96 of the SPPA Law being applied unconstitutional or revoked, it does not mean allowing law enforcers the police, judges, and prosecutors not to carry out diversion obligations.

References

imo Wologito. (2004). Kenakalan Remaja. Yogyakarta: Fakultas Psikologi UGM.

Arief Gosita. (1993). Masalah Korban Kejahatan. Jakarta: Akademi Pressindo.

Maulana Hasan Wadong. (2000). Pengantar Advokasi dan Hukum Perlindungan Anak. Jakarta: Grasindo.

Irma Setyowati Soemitro. (2000). Aspek Hukum Perlindungan Anak. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.

Wagiati Soetodjo. (2009). HukumPidana Anak. Bandung: Refika Aditama.

Legislation:
Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945.
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 Tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana.
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 23 Tahun 2002 Tentang Perlindungan Anak.
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 16 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kejaksaan.
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 11 Tahun 2012 Tentang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak.
Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 65 Tahun 2015 Tentang Pedoman Pelaksanaan Diversi dan Penanganan Anak yang Belum Berumur 12 Tahun.
Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 18 Tahun 2011 Tentang Komisi Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia.
Peraturan Jaksa Agung No. 006/A/J.A/2015 Tentang Pedoman Pelaksanaan Diversi pada Tingkat Penuntutan.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 110/PUU-X/2012.
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 68/PUU-XV/2017.