Tanggung Jawab Negara Terhadap Terpidana Anak Korban Salah Tangkap - Habibie, Maulana; Madiasa; Marlina; Edy Ikhsan (Locus: Jurnal Konsep Ilmu Hukum, 2021)
Negara memiliki tanggungjawab terhadap terpidana anak korban salah tangkap dan sangat erat kaitannya. Hal tersebut dapat dilihat dalam pasal 95 dan pasal 97 Kitab Undang-undang no 8 tahun 1981 Tentang Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Acara Pidana. Bentuk tanggungjawab negara terhadap terpidana anak korban salah tangkap. Tanggungjawabnya berdasarkan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana maka ada dua bentuk tanggungjawabnya yaitu ganti rugi dan rehabilitasi. Analisis terhadap putusan Mahkamah Agung No 131/PK/Pid.Sus/2015. Berdasarkan pertimbangan hakim Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan dalam menjatuhkan Putusannya yaitu menyatakan terdakwa keempat pengamen terbukti melakukan tindak pidana pembunuhan secara bersama-sama dalam Pasal 338 jo 55 ayat (1) Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana dan dikuatkan kembali oleh Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta. Dalam hal ini keputusan hakim tidaklah tepat karena hakim hanya bersandar pada bukti-bukti yang ada pada proses penyidikan dikepolisian.  Sementara itu pada Tingkat Mahkamah Agung berdasarkan Penijauan kembali yang diajukan terpidana anak pengamen yang memuat putusan bebas kepada terpidana anak tersebut. Berdasarkan novoum yang dijadikan alasan menjadi pertimbangan hakim dalam mengabulkan alasan keempat terpidana anak pengamen sehinggah hakim tingkat Mahkamah Agung melalui putusan No 131/PK/Pid.Sus/2015 memutus bebas keempat terpidana anak pengamen. Katakunci: Tanggungjawab Negara, Terpidana Anak, Korban Salah Tangkap Abstract The state has a responsibility to convict child victims of wrongful arrest and is very closely related. This can be seen in Article 95 and Article 97 of the Book of Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code. The form of state responsibility towards convict child victims of wrongful arrest. Responsibilities based on the Criminal Procedure Code, there are two forms of responsibility, namely compensation and rehabilitation. Analysis of the Supreme Court's decision No. 131/PK/Pid.Sus/2015. Based on the consideration of the judges of the South Jakarta District Court in passing their verdict, namely stating that the defendants of the four buskers were proven to have committed the crime of murder together in Article 338 jo 55 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code and reaffirmed byDKI Jakarta High Court. In this case the judge's decision is not right because the judge only relies on the evidence that is in the police investigation process. Meanwhile, at the Supreme Court level, based on a review submitted by the convict child buskers, which contains an acquittal to the convict child. Based on the novoum which was used as the reason for the judge's consideration in granting the reasons for the four convicts of child buskers, the judge at the Supreme Court level through decision No. 131/PK/Pid.Sus/2015 decided to release the four convicts of child buskers. Keywords: State Responsibility, Child Convicts, Victims of Wrong Arrest