<![CDATA[Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis penerapan sanksi pembinaan dan pelatihan kerja serta pertimbangan hakim dalam menjatuhkan putusan terhadap anak pelaku tindak pidana narkotika. Penelitian ini dilatarbelakangi oleh meningkatnya keterlibatan anak dalam tindak pidana narkotika yang menuntut adanya penerapan sistem peradilan pidana anak yang mengutamakan prinsip perlindungan anak serta kepentingan terbaik bagi anak.Metode penelitian yang digunakan yuridis empiris dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus.Data yang diperoleh melalui wawancara dengan aparat penegak hukum serta studi kepustakaan.Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penerapan sanksi tindakan berupa pembinaan dan pelatihan kerja telah sesuai dengan ketentuan dalam peraturan perundang-undangan. Majelis hakim tidak menjatuhkan pidana penjara, melainkan memilih sanksi tindakan sebagai implementasi prinsip keadilan restoratif dan asas ultimum remedium dalam sistem peradilan pidana anak.Pertimbangan hakim didasarkan pada aspek yuridis dan non-yuridis, meliputi terpenuhinya unsur tindak pidana, usia dan kondisi psikologis anak, latar belakang sosial, serta laporan Pembimbing Kemasyarakatan. Putusan tersebut mencerminkan orientasi pada kepentingan terbaik bagi anak dengan menitikberatkan pada pembinaan, pemulihan, dan reintegrasi sosial. Dengan demikian, pemidanaan dalam perkara ini tidak hanya bersifat represif, tetapi juga edukatif dan rehabilitatif. This study aims to analyze the application of coaching and job training sanctions as well as the judges’ considerations in rendering decisions against children involved in narcotics-related crimes. The research is motivated by the increasing involvement of children in narcotics offenses, which requires the implementation of a juvenile criminal justice system that prioritizes the principle of child protection and the best interests of the child. The research method used is empirical juridical with statutory and case approaches. The data were obtained through interviews with law enforcement officials and literature studies. The results show that the application of action sanctions in the form of coaching and job training is in accordance with the provisions of existing laws and regulations. The panel of judges did not impose imprisonment but instead chose action sanctions as an implementation of restorative justice principles and the ultimum remedium principle within the juvenile criminal justice system. The judges’ considerations were based on both juridical and non-juridical aspects, including the fulfillment of the elements of the criminal offense, the child’s age and psychological condition, social background, and the report of the Community Counselor. The decision reflects an orientation toward the best interests of the child by emphasizing guidance, recovery, and social reintegration. Thus, the sentencing in this case is not only repressive in nature but also educational and rehabilitative.]]>
