IMPLEMENTASI DIVERSI DALAM PENYELESAIAN KASUS TINDAK PIDANA YANG DILAKUKAN OLEH ANAK SEBELUM BERLAKUNYA UNDANGUNDANG REPUBLIK INDONESIA NOMOR 11 TAHUN 2012 TENTANG SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA ANAK

Humau, Zusana Cicilia Kemala (2014) IMPLEMENTASI DIVERSI DALAM PENYELESAIAN KASUS TINDAK PIDANA YANG DILAKUKAN OLEH ANAK SEBELUM BERLAKUNYA UNDANGUNDANG REPUBLIK INDONESIA NOMOR 11 TAHUN 2012 TENTANG SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA ANAK. S1 thesis, UAJY.

Preview	Text (Halaman Judul) 0HK10237.pdf Download (432kB) | Preview
Preview	Text (Bab I) 1HK10237.pdf Download (309kB) | Preview
	Text (Bab II) 2HK10237.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (488kB)
Preview	Text (Bab III) 3HK10237.pdf Download (196kB) | Preview

Abstract

This research was aimed to know the outlines of diversion on child criminal jurisdiction system, and also to know the implementation of diversion in resolving child cases in each criminal case resolution stage. This was a normative method research namely a research that examines provisions in the regulations in accordance to examine consistence and synchronization of regulation implementation with the reality. A diversion was a children case resolution transfer from a criminal jurisdiction to a process out of criminal jurisdiction. In the children criminal jurisdiction system, diversion was an important subject due to with diversion existence the child were expected to be avoidable from a negative stigma on a criminal jurisdiction system. Before the implementation of Regulation Number 11 of 2012 on Children Criminal Jurisdiction System, diversified implementation in child criminal jurisdiction system was very minimal. Diversion was only implemented wholly in an observation stage. In the prosecution and session stages, the public prosecutors and the judges did not dare to implement diversion as a child case resolution form at all due to both the public prosecutors as well as the judges reasoned that they had no legal principles to conduct diversion whereas they could conduct diversion by interpreting regulations and also optimizing each authority. The public prosecutors could optimize their discrete authority and their opportunity rights as what regulated in Criminal Acts and Regulation Number 16 of 2004 on State Prosecution Office of Republic of Indonesia, while the judges should be able to conduct diversion by interpreting and optimizing Regulation Number 48 of 2009 on Judge Power.

Actions (login required)

View Item