PEMIDANAAN TERHADAP PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA PENCABULAN ANAK MENURUT UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 35 TAHUN 2014 TENTANG PERLINDUNGAN ANAK DARI PERSPEKTIF TUJUAN PEMIDANAAN (Analisis Putusan Nomor 136/ Pid.Sus/2019/PN Mbn)

Abstract

Fornication is a crime that still occurs frequently and is one of the crimes with the highest crime rate in Indonesia. This is due to the lack of affirmation of the sentence of perpetrators of sexual immorality and the weakness of legal protection for victims so that there are still many crimes of sexual immorality that are not reported to be brought to the legal process. This was due to the victim's fear of reporting it to the police. Lack of public knowledge of the law made them reluctant to report the case. This study aims to determine the application of material criminal law to perpetrators of criminal acts of obscenity in the case of Decision Number: 136 / Pid.Sus / 2019 / PN Mbn and and to find out how the judges' legal considerations in imposing criminal sanctions on Decision Number: 136 / Pid.Sus / 2019 / PN Mbn. The author obtains data by analyzing decision cases and by taking data from relevant literature, namely literature, books and laws and regulations relating to the problem. The results of the research that have been carried out, it is concluded that: a) The conviction of the criminal act of obscenity in decision number 136 / Pid.Sus / 2019 / PN Mbn is not in accordance with what is
stipulated in the Child Protection Law Number 35 of 2014 because the General Prosecutor does not include additional articles, namely Article 82 Paragraph 2 of Law No.35 of 2014 which states in the article that if a criminal act is committed by a parent, the sentence will be increased by one third, even though the perpetrator is the victim's stepparent, but in Law No.35 of 2014 it is explained that what is referred to as parents are biological parents, step parents or adoptive parents, in this case the stepparent is included in the matters mentioned in the article. However, in this case the imposition of the indictment is in accordance with the deed, the facts at the trial and the testimony of the witnesses, it's just that it is lacking in the addition of the weighting article that should be charged by the public prosecutor, which should be added to the sentence by  one third according to Article 82 paragraph 2 of Law No. 2014 which is one-third plus the maximum sentence of 15 years in prison to 20 years in prison.