Tinjauan Yuridis Tindak Pidana Melarikan Perempuan Di Bawah Umur (Studi Kasus: Perkara No. 306/pid.sus/2019/pn.pbr)

Purba, Anggraeni Oktavia (2023) Tinjauan Yuridis Tindak Pidana Melarikan Perempuan Di Bawah Umur (Studi Kasus: Perkara No. 306/pid.sus/2019/pn.pbr). Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Preview

Text 191010572.pdf - Submitted Version Download (4MB) | Preview

Abstract

Determination of the age of adulthood in law, of course, refers to the definition of a child. The definition of a child is very influential in the efficient and controlled implementation of child protection in order to prepare a fleet of superior successors to the nation who are able to face all the world's challenges. The main problem in this research is How is the Application of Material Crime Against the Crime of Escaping Underage Women (Case Study: Case Number 306/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Pbr) and How the Judges' Considerations for the Crime of Escaping Underage Women (Study Case: Case No. 306/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Pbr). As for this research, it is included in mixed law (normative and empirical), meaning that it is a research conducted by the author who goes directly to the field to obtain information and data related to this research and compares it with primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. whereas judging from the nature of this research it is analytical descriptive, namely providing an overview of the Application of Material Crimes Against the Crime of Escaping Underage Women (Case Study: Case Number 306/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Pbr) and the Judge's Considerations for the Crime of Escaping Underage Women (Case Study: Case No. 306/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Pbr). From the results of this study it can be seen that there was a mistake in the application of material punishment in case no. 306/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Pbr in proving the element of running away from an immature woman because it is not in accordance with various laws and regulations which determine that the age of 18 is an adult, based on the facts of the trial at the time of the incident the victim in this case was 19 ( nineteen) years old because he was born on June 27, 1999, so that the victim can be categorized as an adult and the element of fleeing an immature woman from Article 332 Paragraph (1) 1e of the Criminal Code which was charged in a single charge by the Public Prosecutor against the defendant was not fulfilled, while the judge stated that the defendant was legally and convincingly proven guilty of committing the crime of escaping a minor. And there was an error in the Judge's Consideration in determining the elements of Article 332 Paragraph (1) 1e of the Criminal Code and in declaring an immature victim not based on statutory regulations but only fixating on his beliefs and not linking that belief to all sources of consideration juridical and non-juridical considerations, sociological considerations and philosophical considerations resulting in a final decision that does not contain the basic values of law, namely a sense of justice, legal certainty and expediency.

Actions (login required)

View Item