Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Tenggarong Nomor 83/Pid.Sus/2018/Pn.Trg tentang pencabulan terhadap anak didik yang dilakukan oleh guru. Dalam putusan ini hakim berpendapat bahwa terdakwa Eka Rahman terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan telah melanggar Pasal 76E Jo Pasal 82 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2014 tentang perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 2002 tentang Perlindungan Anak Jo Pasal 65 ayat (1) KUHP. Namun kenyataannya majelis hakim menjatuhi putusan yang tidak sesuai terhadap pelaku.
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menganalisis putusan hakim yang tidak menjatuhkan pemberatan pidana sesuai Pasal 82 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Perlindungan Anak, untuk menganalisis putusan hakim yang tidak memperhatikan fakta-fakta di persidangan, dan menganalisis putusan hakim yang tidak mencerminkan asas keadilan, kemanfaatan dan kepastian hukum.
Penelitian ini bersifat studi kasus, yang termasuk jenis penelitian normatif. Metode yang digunakan adalah penelitian kepustakaan dengan menelusuri dan membaca sejumlah buku, jurnal hukum, dan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berkaitan dengan objek penelitian. Alat penelitian yang digunakan berupa putusan pengadilan yang berkaitan dengan permasalahan yang diteliti.
Hasil penulisan menunjukkan bahwa dalam Putusan Nomor 83/Pid.Sus/2018/Pn.Trg, majelis hakim tidak menjatuhkan pemberatan pidana terhadap guru yang melakukan tindak pidana pencabulan terhadap anak didik sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 82 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Perlindungan Anak yang dimuat dalam dawaan kedua penuntut umum. Majelis hakim tidak memperhatikan fakta dipersidangan bahwa anak korban mengalami pencabulan secara berulang. Putusan hakim tidak mencerminkan asas keadilan, kemanfaatan dan kepastian hukum, karena penjatuhan vonis yang rendah terhadap terdakwa tidak memenuhi rasa keadilan bagi korban, serta tidak menjadi pencegahan bagi masyarakat agar tidak mengulangi perbuatan serupa, kelirunya penerapan pasal menunjukkan tidak terpenuhinya kepastian hukum.
Saran bagi majelis hakim dalam membuat putusan agar tegas, cermat, teliti dan berpedoman pada Undang-Undang perlindungan anak. Serta lebih memperhatikan hak-hak anak yang mengalami trauma akibat tindak pidana yang terjadi. Selain itu Majelis hakim disarankan agar lebih memperhatikan fakta-fakta yang ada dipersidangan, dan mempertimbangkan kesaksian anak korban.

The decision of the Tenggarong District Court Number 83/Pid.Sus/2018/Pn.Trg concerning obscene behavior against students committed by teachers. In this decision the judge was of the opinion that the defendant Eka Rahman was legally and convincingly proven to have violated Article 76E Jo Article 82 paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 of 2014 concerning amendments to Law Number 23 of 2002 concerning Child Protection in conjunction with Article 65 paragraph ( 1) Criminal Code. However, in reality, the panel of judges handed down an inappropriate decision against the perpetrators. The purpose of this study is to analyze the judge's decision that does not impose a criminal weight in accordance with Article 82 paragraph (2) of the Child Protection Act, to analyze the judge's decision that does not pay attention to the facts at trial, and to analyze the judge's decision that does not reflect the principles of justice, expediency and legal certainty. This research is a case study, which belongs to the type of normative research. The method used is library research by browsing and reading a number of books, legal journals, and laws and regulations relating to the object of research. The research tool used is in the form of court decisions related to the problems studied. The results of the writing show that in Decision Number 83/Pid.Sus/2018/Pn.Trg, the panel of judges did not impose criminal penalties on teachers who committed crimes against students in accordance with the provisions of Article 82 paragraph (2) of the Child Protection Act which contained in the indictment of the two public prosecutors. The panel of judges did not pay attention to the fact at trial that the victim's child had been sexually abused repeatedly. The judge's decision does not reflect the principles of justice, expediency and legal certainty, because the low verdict against the defendant does not fulfill the sense of justice for the victim, and does not serve as a deterrent for the community from repeating similar acts. Suggestions for the panel of judges in making decisions to be firm, careful, thorough and guided by the law on child protection. And pay more attention to the rights of children who have been traumatized by the crimes that have occurred. In addition, the panel of judges is advised to pay more attention to the facts in court, and to consider the testimony of the victim's child.