Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Kekerasan dalam rumah tangga (pkdrt) adalah tindak pidana yang diatur dalam pasal 50 undang-undang nomor 23 tahun 2004, tentang hukuman bagi pelaku kekerasan dalam rumah tangga menyebutkan bahwa, hukuman bagi pelaku kekerasan dalam rumah tangga adalah penjara atau denda. pasal 50 menjelaskan bahwa sanksi tambahan diberikan bagi pelaku kekerasan dalam rumah tangga; a.pembatasan gerak pelaku baik yang bertujuan untuk menjatuhkan pelaku dalam jarak dan waktu tertentu,maupun pembatasan hak-hak tertentu dari pelaku; b. penetapan pelaku mengikuti program konseling di bawah pengawasan lembaga tertentu.dan pada kenyataannya pidana konseling belum pernah di terapkan. penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan faktor hakim tidak menjatuhkan pidana tambahan berupa konseling, hambatan jaksa tidak pernah menuntut pidana tambahan berupa konseling.,dan upaya dalam menerapkan pidana konseling. penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis empiris yaitu penelitian hukum yang menggunakan fakta-fakta empiris yang diperoleh melalui wawancara semi terstruktur. metode pengambilan sampel menggunakan metode purposive sampling yang diperkirakan mewakili seluruh populasi. cara analisis data menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif yang menganalisis data secara induktif dan menghasilkan data deskriptif. hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa hakim tidak menerapkan pidana tambahan berupa konseling dan jaksa tidak menuntut pidana tambahan berupa konseling di pengadilan negeri banda aceh (2021–2024) menunjukkan bahwa sebanyak 16 kasus kdrt yeng belum pernah diterapkan pidana tambahan berupa program konseling tidak diterapkan, disebabkan oleh kurangnya tuntutan jaksa, ketiadaan prosedur yang jelas, serta rendahnya pemahaman aparat penegak hukum dan masyarakat tentang efektivitas konseling. hambatan dalam pelaksanaan pemidanaan pelaku kdrt di indonesia meliputi hambatan internal, seperti keterbatasan dalam pengumpulan bukti, kurangnya pelatihan aparat penegak hukum, minimnya pemanfaatan visum et repertum psikiatrikum, hambatan dalam proses persidangan, serta putusan hakim yang cenderung ringan. di sisi eksternal, terdapat stigma sosial terhadap korban, ketergantungan ekonomi korban pada pelaku, budaya patriarki, serta trauma dan ketakutan yang dialami korban, yang mengurangi efektivitas sistem peradilan dalam memberikan keadilan. meskipun pemidanaan terhadap pelaku kdrt sudah mengatur sanksi penjara atau denda sesuai tingkat kejahatan, upaya pendampingan terhadap korban melalui layanan pengaduan, mediasi, dan pendampingan litigasi telah dilakukan.padahal hal ini sangat penting untuk mencegah kekerasan berulang dan untuk rehabilitasi pelaku. disarankan untuk meningkatkan efektivitas pemidanaan kepada hakim, dan mendorong jaksa penuntut umum untuk memasukkan tuntutan konseling. pemerintah juga harus memperbaiki fasilitas konseling dengan melibatkan tenaga ahli, serta mengurangi stigma sosial terhadap pelaku rehabilitasi.

Domestic Violence (DV) is a criminal offense regulated under Article 50 of Law No. 23 of 2004, which addresses the penalties for perpetrators of domestic violence. It states that the punishment for domestic violence perpetrators is imprisonment or fines. Article 50 further explains that additional sanctions may be imposed on perpetrators of domestic violence, including: a. restrictions on the movement of the perpetrator, either aiming to limit their distance and time in certain situations, or restrictions on certain rights of the perpetrator; b. the requirement for the perpetrator to participate in counseling programs under the supervision of specific institutions. However, in practice, counseling as a criminal penalty has never been applied. This study aims to explain the factors why judges do not impose additional penalties in the form of counseling, the obstacles faced by prosecutors in not seeking counseling as an additional penalty, and the efforts needed to implement counseling as a penalty. This research employs a juridical-empirical method, which is a legal study that uses empirical facts obtained through semi-structured interviews. The sampling method used is purposive sampling, which is expected to represent the entire population. The data analysis approach is qualitative, analyzing data inductively and producing descriptive data. The results of the study indicate that judges have not imposed additional penalties in the form of counseling, and prosecutors have not sought counseling as an additional penalty in the Banda Aceh District Court (2021–2024). Of the 16 domestic violence cases reviewed, none have had additional penalties such as counseling programs applied. This is due to the lack of prosecution requests for counseling, the absence of clear procedures, and the low understanding of law enforcement officers and the public about the effectiveness of counseling. Obstacles in the implementation of criminal penalties for domestic violence perpetrators in Indonesia include internal challenges, such as limitations in gathering evidence, lack of training for law enforcement officers, minimal use of psychiatric medical reports (visum et repertum), challenges in trial processes, and lenient judicial decisions. External obstacles include social stigma against victims, the victims' economic dependency on the perpetrators, patriarchal culture, as well as trauma and fear experienced by the victims, which reduce the effectiveness of the justice system in delivering justice. Although penalties for domestic violence perpetrators already include imprisonment or fines according to the severity of the crime, efforts to assist victims through complaint services, mediation, and litigation support have been undertaken. However, these efforts are crucial to prevent recurring violence and for the rehabilitation of the perpetrators. It is recommended to improve the effectiveness of sentencing for judges and encourage public prosecutors to include counseling demands. The government should also enhance counseling facilities by involving experts and reduce the social stigma against perpetrators undergoing rehabilitation.