Published date: May 30 2024

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: The 6th International Conference on Social Sciences and Humanities (ICOSSH VI)

Pages: 364–373

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v9i18.16364

Aprizayanti Anggelinaanggelina.aprizayanti@outlook.comPublic Administration Doctoral Program, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Sriwijaya University, Jalan Padang Tuesday 524, Palembang 30139, South Sumatra

Since the issuance of Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System—a replacement for Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 3 of 1997 concerning Juvenile Justice, the rules regarding resolving problems of children in conflict with the law whether as children of perpetrators, children of witnesses, or children of victims, have been indirectly strengthened. Through the Juvenile Criminal Justice System Law, it is believed that it can be a part of realizing children’s constitutional rights such as the right to survival, the right to protection, the right to growth and development, and the right to participate in legal problems faced by children. In this case, the correctional center, which is a technical implementation unit of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, through the Probation Officer has an important role in carrying out the mandate of the Juvenile Criminal Justice System Law with the task and function of carrying out assistance to children who conflict with the law since pre-adjudication, adjudication, to post-adjudication period, or from the start of the investigation process until later the implementation of the court decision. However, the focus of this research is the role of the Probation Officer for children in conflict with the law under the age of 12 years, where in Article 21 of the Juvenile Criminal Justice System Law, the implementation of case resolution for children in conflict with the law under the age of 12 years who commit or are suspected of committing a criminal act requires that investigators, Probation Officer, and professional social workers make a decision to hand him back to his parents or guardians or include him in an education, coaching, and mentoring program at a government agency or Social Welfare Implementation Institution for a maximum of 6 months. Therefore, problems will arise when the family of the victim of a criminal act committed by a child in conflict with the law under the age of 12 years does not accept the provisions of the punishment given to the child perpetrator, which they feel is unfair to the victim. This research used descriptive analysis with data collection obtained from data on children in conflict with the law under the age of 12, and who were assisted by Probation Officer at the Class I Palembang Correctional Center; followed by in-depth interviews with Probation Officer at the Class I Correctional Center Palembang and children in conflict with the law under the age of 12 and their families. The results of the data collection are then identified and analyzed, and presented in descriptive form so that they can then provide an overview of the existing problems. The results of the research show that this problem comes to the surface when the victim of a child protection crime is dissatisfied with the recommended punishment given to children in conflict with the law under the age of 12, which is the result of a joint decision between investigators, Probation Officer, and professional social workers. Namely by involving them in educational, coaching, and mentoring programs at government agencies or social welfare implementation institutions for a maximum of 6 months. Therefore, the role of Probation Officer can be further enhanced, especially in assisting children who are in conflict with the law under the age of 12 so that ultimately they can realize restorative justice, which aims at the best interests of the child.

Keywords: robation officer, children in conflict with the Law Under 12 Years of Age

[1] Firdauz IM. Penyelesaian Perkara Anak Sebagai Pelaku Tindak Pidana Melalui Pendekatan Keadilan Restorative Justice. Jurnal Panorama Hukum. 2019;4(2):124– 34.

[2] Fitria, R. (2017). Penerapan Diversi Yang Dilakukan Oleh Penyidik Dalam Penanganan Tindak Pidana Yang Dilakukan Oleh Anak. Dinamika Hukum, 11.

[3] Ahmad I. OPTIMALISASI DIVERSI DALAM UPAYA MENEKAN TINDAK PIDANA KEKERASAN KELOMPOK GENERASI MUDA/PELAJAR DI KOTA CIREBON. Jurnal De Jure Muhammadiyah Cirebon. 2020;4(1):1–12.

[4] Hassan N, Minggo MA. PENDIDIKAN DAN LATIHAN VOKASIONAL DI INSTITUSI PEMULIHAN JUVANA: PENINGKATAN PELUANG KERJAYA DAN PENGURANGAN RESIDIVISME DALAM KALANGAN PESALAH MUDA. E-Bangi Journal of Social Science and Humanities. 2022;19(5): https://doi.org/10.17576/ebangi.2022.1905.14.

[5] Australian Human Rights Commission. The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. Australia’s Third UPR; 2021.

[6] Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2012 tentang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2012 Nomor 153, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 5332)

[7] Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 65 Tahun 2015 tentang Pedoman Pelaksanaan Diversi Dan Penanganan Anak Yang Belum Berumur 12 (Dua Belas) Tahun) (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2015 Nomor 194, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 5732)

[8] Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 8 Tahun 2017 tentang Tata Cara Pelaksanaan Koordinasi, Pemantauan, Evaluasi, dan Pelaporan Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2017 Nomor 40, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 6027);

[9] Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 9 Tahun 2017 tentang Pedoman Register Perkara Anak dan Anak Korban (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2017 Nomor 49, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 6033)