Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Terhadap Anak Sebagai Pelaku Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan Berencana (Analisis Putusan Nomor 10/Pid.Sus-Anak/2022/Pn Gst dan Putusan Nomor 1/Pid.Sus-Anak/2023/Pn Rgt)

Abstract

The research was motivated by cases of premeditated murder involving children as perpetrators, which pose complex legal issues. The Juvenile Criminal Justice System Act emphasises the protection of children's rights and the principle of restorative justice. However, in some cases, children can still be held legally responsible if they meet the elements of guilt as stipulated in criminal law, while still considering the principles of proportionality, the best interests of the child, and the avoidance of retaliation. This study analyses two verdicts in premeditated murder cases committed by children, namely the Gunungsitoli District Court Verdict Number 10/Pid.Sus-Anak/2022/PN GST and the Rengat District Court Verdict Number 1/Pid.Sus-Anak/2023/PN RGT. This study addresses several issues, including: 1) How criminal law regulates premeditated murder; 2) How children are held criminally responsible as perpetrators of premeditated murder; 3) How did the judges consider the criminal liability of juvenile perpetrators in the Gunungsitoli District Court Decision Number 10/Pid.Sus-Anak/2022/PN GST and the Rengat District Court Decision Number 1/Pid.Sus-Anak/2023/PN RGT. The research method used was a descriptive normative legal method using a legislative approach and a case approach. This study used secondary data sourced from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The data analysis methods used were qualitative analysis and deductive reasoning. The results of the study found that children as perpetrators of premeditated murder can still be held accountable in accordance with the provisions of Article 340 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) and Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning the Criminal Justice System for Children. Both verdicts show that the judges sentenced the child perpetrators to imprisonment, but the panel of judges in both verdicts studied still emphasised the retributive aspect, while the aspects of child protection and social reintegration were not optimally accommodated.