PEMBERIAN BANTUAN HUKUM KEPADA ANAK KORBAN TINDAK PIDANA DI LEMBAGA BANTUAN HUKUM RUPADI (Rumah Pejuang Keadilan Indonesia) SEMARANG

Abstract

The role of legal aid institutions is very necessary for victims who need assistance, especially since the victim is still a minor and their parents are unfamiliar with the law. Legal assistance from LBH RUPADI Semarang for child victims of sexual harassment is enough to help child victims and their families, where the existence of witness victims is important in disclosing a crime, in the criminal justice process the existence of witnesses and victims in the criminal justice process requires protection in every judicial process criminal. Formulation of this problem: how to provide legal assistance to child victims of crime at the RUPADI legal aid institution (House of Indonesian Justice Warriors) Semarang. As well as what are the inhibiting factors in efforts to give law to child victims of crime at the RUPADI legal aid institution (House of Indonesian Justice Warriors) Semarang. This research method uses a normative juridical research type. Research specification is in concreto. The author uses a secondary data source, with data collection namely: literature, then the writer presents it descriptively, followed by the writer analyzing the data qualitatively. The results showed that the legal assistance provided by LBH RUPADI Semarang to child victims of Dian Anggita binti Suwardi was by providing assistance when the victim's parents reported to the Police, regarding the crime of sexual harassment by Tegar Saputro bin Edi Suprapto, then psychological assistance, to conducting monitoring during a court hearing. The inhibiting factor in efforts to provide legal assistance to child victims by LBH RUPADI Semarang is that in immoral cases it is very dilemmatic because the victims and perpetrators are consensual, where in the trial when examining the victim's child Dian Anggita binti Suwardi actually confessed that she loved and was not even willing if the defendant in prison, but in this case the law continues to apply because the defendant is in the adult category, while the victim's child is still under the age category at the time of the incident, namely he was only 14 (four teen) years old.