VOlUME 04 ISSUE 03 MARCH 2021
1Kayus Kayowuan Lewoleba,2 Beniharmoni Harefa, 3Mulyadi
1,2,3 Faculty of Law, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jakarta
Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
Correctional Bureau (BAPAS) plays a very important and strategic role in child criminal case settlement. One form of the settlement is made through diversion, for child to avoid the bad impact of formal child criminal judicature. The research employed a juridical normative research method and statute approach and conceptual approach. The role of Bapas in child criminal case settlement through diversion is quite important and strategic as set forth in Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning Child Criminal Judiciary System, Government Regulation Number 65 of 2015 concerning the Guidelines on the Implementation of Diversion and Dealing with Under 12 (Twelve) Years Old Child, Regulation of Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4 of 2014 concerning the Guidelines on Diversion Implementation in Child Criminal Judiciary System. The constraints found in the diversion implementation are related to remedy for victim and non-optimal post-diversion supervision by the Correctional Advisor of Correctional Bureau (PK Bapas).
KEYWORDS:diversion, juvenile justice system, child protection.
REFERENCES
1) Damayanti Yohana, Beniharmoni Harefa, 2021, “Optimalisasi Peran Balai Pemasyarakatan Dalam Pelaksanaan
Pembinaan Terhadap Pelaku Tindak Pidana Yang Dibebaskan Di Masa Pandemi Covid 19”, Syntax Literate – Indonesian
Scientific Journal, Vol. 6 Number 1 January 2021, p. 240
2) Explanatory note to Article 5 paragraph 3 states: “what is meant by susceptible society groups include the elderly,
children, the poor, pregnant women, and the disabled.
3) This convention has been ratified through Presidential Decree Number 36 of 1990 concerning Legalization (Convention
on Child’s Rights)
4) Pratiwi Citra Wado, 2016, Pemeriksaan Perkara Anak di Sidang Pengadilan Menurut Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak, Lex
et Socieatatis, Vol. 4 Number 2 Feb 2016 p. 38
5) KPAI, Membangun Indonesia Ramah Anak, Capaian Pelaksanaan Pengawasan Perlinduangan Anak Indonesia 2014-
2017 p. 144
6) Purnama Pancar Chandra & Johny Krisnan, 2016 “Pelaksanaan Diversi Ditingkat Pengadilan Berdasarkan Undang-
Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2012 Tentang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak”, Varia Justicia Journal, Vol.12, No.1, Oktober
2016, p.229
7) Howard Zehr, 1990 “Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice”, Scottdale, Pennsylvania; Waterloo,
(Ontario: Herald Press, 1990), h. 181,
https://na.eventscloud.com/file_uploads/e55c8348f32f15bf8c90d185d17484c1_Restorative_justice__principle.PDF
(accessed on 22 October 2020)
8) Lilik Purwastuti Yudaningsih, 2015, “Penangan Perkara Anak Melalui Restorative Justice”, Law Science Journal. Vol. 6,
No. 1 February 2015. p. 71
9) Yusi Amdani, 2016 ”Konsep Restorative Justice dalam penyelesaian perkara tindak pidana pencurian oleh anak berbasis
hukum islam dan adat Aceh”, AL-‘ADALAH Vol. XIII, No. 1, June 2016, p. 62
10) Muhammad Azil Maskur, 2012, “Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Anak Nakal (Juvenile Delinquency) Dalam Proses
Acara Pidana Indonesia”, Pandecta, Vol 7. No 2. July 2012, p.180
11) Widodo, 2012, Prisonisasi Anak Fenomena dan Penanggulanganya, Yogyakarta: Aswaja Pressindo
12) Esthi Susanti and Yoel Setiawan, 2012, Perlindungan Khusus pada Anak : Dialog Pengalaman dengan Teori,
Yogyakarta: Penerbit Aswaja Pressindo p. 249
13) Sri Rahayu, 2015 ”Diversi sebagai alternative penyelesaian perkara tindak pidana yang dilakukan anak dalam prespektif
sistem peradilan pidana anak”, Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 2015, Hal 130
14) Widodo, 2012, Diversi dan Keadilan Restoratif Dalam UU Number 11 tahun 2012 tentang Child Criminal Judiciary
System: Menakar Kesiapan Penegak Hukum Masyarakat dan Pemangku Kepentingan, p. 252
15) Bambang Sunggono, 2007, Metodologi Penelitian Hukum, Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada, p. 28.
16) Bambang Waluyo, 2002, Penelitian Hukum Dalam Praktek, Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, p. 15
17) Peter Mahmud Marzuki, 2013, Penelitian Hukum, Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group, p. 133.
18) Article 14 paragraph 2 Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning Child Criminal Judiciary System (UU SPPA)
19) Article 87 paragraph 1 UU SPPA
20) Article 87 paragraph 3 UU SPPA
21) Article 13 paragraph 1 item a Government Regulation Number 65 of 2015 concerning Guidelines on the Implementation
of Diversion and Dealing with Under 12 (Twelve) Years Old Child (PP 65 of 2015)
22) Article 33 paragraph 3 item d PP 65 of 2015
23) Article 52 paragraph 1 PP 65 of 2015
24) Beniharmoni Harefa, 2016, Kapita Selekta Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Anak, Yogyakarta: Deepublish, p. 151
25) Setya Wahyudi, 2011, Implementasi Ide Diversi Dalam Pembaruan Child Criminal Judiciary System di Indonesia,
Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing, p.117
26) Article 4 paragraph 2 item c Regulation of Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4 of 2014 concerning the
Guidelines on Diversion Implementation in Child Criminal Judiciary System
27) Marlina, 2012, Peradilan Pidana Anak di Indonesia, Bandung: Refika Aditama, p. 134-135
28) Article 8 paragraph 1 Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning Child Criminal Judiciary System
29) Article 9 paragraph 2 Law Number 11 of 2012, that is for: a. crime in the form of violation; b. light crime; c. crime
without victim; d. victim’s loss value is not more than minimum local provincial wage value
30) Article 14 paragraph 2 and Article 65 item a Law Number 11 of 2012