<![CDATA[ABSTRAKPutusan Nomor 229/Pid.B/2012/PN.Jpr memutuskan sanksi pidana penjara terhadap anak pengguna narkotika, tanpa disertai tindakan rehabilitasi medis dan rehabilitasi sosial. Kewajiban pemeriksaan dokter ahli jiwa untuk menentukan urgensi tindakan rehabilitasi telah dikesampingkan oleh hakim di dalam memutus kasus. Permasalahan yang dikaji meliputi urgensi keterangan ahli dalam pemeriksaan ajudikasi tindak pidana narkotika dan aplikasi prinsip "kepentingan terbaik bagi anak" dalam penjatuhan sanksi terhadap anak pengguna narkotika. Metode penulisan berbasis pada penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan sumber data sekunder. Data penelitian berupa bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder, dan bahan hukum tersier. Analisis data dilakukan secara kualitatif, yaitu penelitian hukum kualitatif (qualitative-legal research). Penjatuhan sanksi pidana penjara tanpa tindakan rehabilitasi terhadap anak pengguna narkotika tidak sejalan dengan tujuan pemidanaan. Prinsip individualisasi pidana dan prinsip double track system sebenarnya dapat diterapkan dalam kasus tindak pidana narkotika oleh pelaku anak. Hakim dalam menjatuhkan sanksi terhadap anak seharusnya berorientasi pada prinsip kepentingan terbaik bagi anak, sehingga pemidanaan terhadap anak, khususnya pidana perampasan kemerdekaan digunakan sebagai upaya terakhir (ultimum remedium).Kata kunci: keterangan ahli, pertanggungjawaban pidana, hukum pembuktian. ABSTRACTThe Court Decision Number 229/Pid.B/2012/PN.Jpr imposed sanctions of imprisonment against the children of drug users without any of medical and social rehabilitation measures. The provision on the examination of the psychiatrist to settle on the urgency of rehabilitation measures have been ruled out by the judges in deciding the case. The problems outlined embrace the urgency of testifying expert witnesses in the adjudication of narcotic crime case and the implementation of the "best interests of the child" measure in the imposition of sanction on the children of drug users. The analytical method used is based on normative legal research using secondary data sources. The research data are in the form of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The data were analyzed qualitatively through a method of qualitative legal research. Imposing sanction of imprisonment with no rehabilitation measures on the children of drug users is inconsistent with the objective of sentencing. The principle of individualization of punishment and double track system can actually be implemented in the case of narcotic crime involving children offender. The judge in imposing sanctions on the children should be oriented to the measure of best interests of children, so that conviction for a criminal offence against children, particularly deprivation of liberty is done as a last resort (ultimum remedium).Keywords: expert witnesses, criminal responsibility, rules of evidence.]]>
