Tinjauan Kriminologi Terhadap Kejahatan Pencabulan Anak Kandung (Studi Kasus di Wilayah Hukum Polres Tanah Karo)

Abstract

Children are a gift from God, endowed with dignity and worth, and have the full right to protection, as stipulated in the PConvention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the Indonesian Government (Presidential Decree No. 36 of 1990) and various related laws. However, reality shows that instead of receiving protection, children are victims of sexual crimes, even those perpetrated by their own fathers. These crimes damage the child's mental health and future, exacerbated by negative stigma and cynical views from their environment, which further complicate the victim's situation. This normative legal research aims to examine the legal provisions for the crime of child molestation, analyze the causal factors and the perpetrators' modus operandi within the jurisdiction of the Tanah Karo Police, and identify obstacles to its resolution. The research results indicate that the legal provisions for the crime of child molestation by a biological father are regulated in the Criminal Code (Article 294 paragraph (1) of the old Criminal Code and Article 418 paragraph (1) of Law No. 1 of 2023), as well as outside the Criminal Code, particularly in Law No. 35 of 2014 concerning Amendments to the Child Protection Law, which increases the penalties for parents of perpetrators (Article 82 paragraphs (1) and (2)). In addition, Perppu No. 1 of 2016 adds criminal sanctions (Article 82 paragraphs (3) to (6)) to provide maximum protection The factors causing this act include internal factors (deviant sexual orientation, weak faith, past trauma) and external factors (education, economic factors, the influence of alcohol, narcotics, and gambling). The perpetrator's modus operandi generally involves threats, either directly or by using other people as an excuse to get the victim to comply. In response, the Tanah Karo Police faced both internal (difficulty gathering evidence and addressing the victim's trauma) and external (attempts to cover up the case by the victim's family and the reluctance of witnesses to testify). The Karo District Attorney's Office also encountered external obstacles, such as the defendant's lack of transparency and evasiveness. Furthermore, the community faced obstacles stemming from kinship ties and a lack of legal education. The response utilized was both preventive and repressive (post-incident) measures. Consistent law enforcement, with maximum penalties and additional penalties, and an active role for the community in eradicating violence against children are needed to achieve comprehensive and optimal resolution