<![CDATA[Law No 11 of 2012 on the Juvenile Criminal Justice System requires that imprisonment of a child be a last resort, yet children who carry sharp weapons are regularly imprisoned because diversion is closed to them. This study examines Purworejo District Court Decision No 5/Pid.Sus-Anak/2024/PN Pwr, in which a student who carried a sickle during a brawl between students, without injuring anyone, was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. It asks on what grounds the sentence rests and whether it conforms to the best interests of the child and the last-resort rule. The research is normative, using statutory, case and conceptual approaches, and compares the decision with two other juvenile weapons decisions. The sentence is lawful in form: the offence carried up to ten years, so diversion was legally excluded, not merely ineffective. Its reasoning is weak in substance. Imprisonment in a juvenile institution requires a finding that the child endangers the community, but the decision rests mainly on weak parental supervision, a deficit that a supervision sentence, guidance outside an institution or institutional guidance addresses directly, and a three-month term was within the range for a conditional sentence. Courts should state why each non-custodial option is inadequate, and the diversion threshold should be reconsidered for possession offences that cause no harm.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
