Wrong diagnosis: The case of Prita Mulyasari and the threat to ...

CAVEAT
INDONESIA’S MONTHLY HUMAN RIGHTS ANALYSIS


VOLUME 01/I, JUNE 2009






MAIN REPORT |
ADDITIONAL FEATURE |
Wrong diagnosis:
Rolling the Dice on
Children’s Rights
The case of Prita
On May 29, 2009, ten children were arrested at
Soekarno-Hatta International Airport for
Mulyasari and
allegedly gambling within the airport
facility.They were subsequently charged with
violating Article 303 of the Indonesian Criminal
the threat to free
Code regarding gambling and were detained at
Tangerang Children’s Prison, where they
remained until released on June 26 to await trial.
speech


The arrest of Prita Mulyasari, an ordinary 32-

year-old mother of two, for allegedly defaming a

hospital via an online complaint, triggered
unprecedented public protest and thrust

Indonesia’s treatment of basic human rights
OPINION |
back into the spotlight.
Indonesia’s Torture of


Addicts Must Stop

It is time for international human rights standards to

be incorporated at the heart of international drug
policies. The torture of any human being is

unacceptable, and this includes drug users. Failure to

implement humane policies will merely prolong the

drawn-out sufferings of drug users as well as the

mistaken attitudes of society.





www.lbhmasyarakat.org
CAVEAT:

Let her or him be aware

---

C A V E A T | june 2009 | 1
CONTENT


THE EDITOR’S CUT | 2



MAIN REPORT | 3
Wrong diagnosis: The case of Prita Mulyasari and the threat to free speech



ADDITIONAL FEATURE | 8
Rolling the Dice on Children’s Rights



OPINION | 12
Indonesia’s Torture of Addicts Must Stop


CAVEAT is published by the Community Legal Aid Institute (LBH Masyarakat), Jakarta,
Indonesia. All rights reserved. Neither this publication nor any part of it may be reproduced
without prior permission of the LBH Masyarakat.



CAVEAT invites feedback and contributions. If you are interested in contributing a guest
editorial piece or article, please first contact us: contact@lbhmasyarakat.org



Editorial Board:
Ricky Gunawan, Dhoho Ali Sastro, Andri G. Wibisana, Ajeng Larasati, Answer C. Styannes,
Christine Tambunan, Pebri Rosmalina, Andy Wiyanto, Antonius Badar, Nur Annissa Rizki
Santoso, Yura Pratama
Special Adviser:
Nick Perry
Finance and Circulation:
Zaki Wildan
Address:
Tebet Timur Dalam III D, No. 2, Jakarta 12820, INDONESIA
Phone:
+62 21 830 54 50
Fax:
+62 21 829 15 06
E-mail:
contact@lbhmasyarakat.org
Website:
www.lbhmasyarakat.org


L E M B A G A B A N T U A N H U K U M M A S Y A R A K A T

---

C A V E A T | june 2009 | 2
THE EDITOR’S CUT


In Latin, caveat literally means let her or
erase criminal defamation laws is far from
him be aware. Legally, it refers to a notice
over in Indonesia.
directed at a court or public officer to

suspend a proceeding until the notifier is
Our additional feature presents you with a
awarded a hearing. It was the poignant
snapshot of one of the several cases we are
literal meaning of the word that led us to
currently advocating. In May, ten shoe-shine
the name for our first English report. Caveat
boys were arrested at Soekarno-Hatta
aims to present monthly analysis of the
International Airport by the airport police
human rights situation in Indonesia. We
for allegedly gambling. The case has now
chose to publish CAVEAT in English to cater
been delivered to the Banten Provincial
to our non-Indonesian audience who are
Prosecutor’s Office and the boys are
particularly interested in the development
awaiting trial and a possible jail sentence.
of
human
rights,
legal
reform
and
This report explores the Indonesian juvenile
democracy in Indonesia. We are aware that
justice system, the special considerations of
other Indonesian NGOs have been largely
laws protecting children and the improper
contributing to the human rights discourse
action taken by police when dealing with
in Indonesia by publishing their regular
this
case.
It
also
looks
into
the
publications in Bahasa, so we decided to go
interpretation of laws, the alleged charge of
down a different path and diversify in the
‘gambling’ and chronic ongoing problems of
hope of encouraging dialogue.
Indonesia’s juvenile detention facilities.


In this first edition, we present you one
The final article in this month’s edition of
main report, an additional feature and one
CAVEAT
is
an
opinion
piece
titled
opinion piece. Our first main report
“Indonesia’s torture of addicts must stop.”
discusses the dangerous precedent set by
This article was written by our research
the judiciary and law enforcement in a
volunteer, Edwina Kharisma, and debates
recent case pertaining to freedom of speech.
the use of torture conducted against drug
In June 2009, Prita Mulyasari – an ordinary
users in Indonesia. This article was
32-year-old mother of two – was brought
published in commemoration of the
before the court for allegedly defaming a
International Day in Support of Victims of
hospital via an online complaint. The case
Torture as well as the International Day
drew massive public support along with the
against Drugs Abuse and Illicit Trafficking of
attention of public figures and even the
Drugs, which both fell on June 26.
presidential candidates. Rights activists and

legal experts, fearing Prita would be jailed,
We sincerely hope these three articles in the
argued that Indonesia’s freedom of speech
first edition of CAVEAT will promote a
was at stake. Civil movements sprung up in
better understanding and awareness among
her defence, arguing that freedom of speech
readers of the latest human rights situation
was
enshrined
in
the
Indonesian
in Indonesia. We also acknowledge that our
Constitution, Human Rights Law and the
publication will not be one hundred percent
International Covenant on Civil and Political
perfect the first time around, and welcome
Rights. Finally, after significant pressure
and appreciate any constructive criticism.
from the House of Representatives and the

public, Prita was cleared of all charges and
Thank you for your ongoing support.
released. However, the long struggle to

- The Editor




L E M B A G A B A N T U A N H U K U M M A S Y A R A K A T

---

C A V E A T | june 2009 | 3
MAIN REPORT

Wrong diagnosis: The case of Prita
Mulyasari and the threat to free
speech

“So long as defamation articles are still regulated in the Criminal Code,
our freedom of speech and expression will be trampled.”
- Ricky Gunawan, Programme Director of the Community Legal Aid Institute.

“On the one hand, we have this information law [ITE], but on the other we have the Constitution, Human
Rights Law and press laws that guarantee freedom of expression. The ITE Law must be applied
comprehensively in relation to other laws to prevent possible misinterpretations like this.”
- Bachtiar Aly, expert on communications at the University of Indonesia.

GENERAL BACKGROUND
year 2008 regarding Electronic Information

and Transaction, hereinafter referred to as
The arrest of Prita Mulyasari, an ordinary
the ITE Law).
32-year-old mother of two, for allegedly

defaming a hospital via an online complaint,
After receiving poor treatment at Omni
triggered unprecedented public protest and
International Hospital, Prita wrote an email
thrust Indonesia’s treatment of basic human
in September 2008 detailing her experience
rights back into the spotlight.1
to friends, which was soon rapidly

distributed across forums via online mailing
The
controversy
surrounding
her
lists.
detainment
led
to
the
House
of

Representatives’ demanding the hospital
Once the email became public knowledge,
withdraw its accusations and saw the three
Omni International Hospital responded by
current presidential candidates weighing in
filing a criminal complaint and a civil
on the debate and eventually led to Prita
lawsuit against Prita. She was then arrested
being acquitted of all charges and her
on May 13, 2009, by the Banten Provincial
prosecutors facing investigation.
Prosecutor’s Office. She was charged under

Articles 310 and 311 of the
While significant pressure
While significant pressure eventually led to
Criminal Code regarding
eventually led to Prita being
Prita being released, the important aspect of
defamation and Article 27 of
released, the important
her arrest is the questions it raises in
the ITE Law. Prita faced a
aspect of her arrest is the
relation to freedom of speech and the right
maximum
six
years
questions it raises in relation
of the consumer to complain about medical
imprisonment and fines of
to freedom of speech and the
services. Furthermore, concerns have been
up to IDR 1 billion as a
right of the consumer to
raised about the prosecutors’ lack of
result of a sending this
complain about medical
sensitivity,
fairness
and
proportional
straightforward email of
punishment when dealing with suspects,
complaint.
services
and their unsubstantiated interpretation of

certain laws (particularly Law Number 11
Once the case generated massive public
attention, the Tangerang district court

trying Prita began to feel the pressure.
1 For the detailed letter (in Bahasa) please see:
Rallies were held across the country by
http://suarapembaca.detik.com/read/2008/08
/30/111736/997265/283/rs-omni-dapatkan-
those who empathised with this normal,
pasien-dari-hasil-lab-fiktif
L E M B A G A B A N T U A N H U K U M M A S Y A R A K A T

---

C A V E A T | june 2009 | 4
everyday mother suddenly behind bars
In Indonesia, the vast majority of articles
away from her children.
within the Criminal Code have not changed

since the Dutch made the laws of Wetboek
Civil movements, demanding reforms of the
van Strafrecht effective in September 1886.
ITE Law and calling for the protection of
The proposed reform of the Criminal Code
consumers and freedom of expression,
has been submitted to the House of
gathered speed and soon academics,
Representatives
but
is
still
being
politicians, international and local rights’
deliberated by legislators.
activists, internet advocates and the public

were joining the fray.
The
Indonesian
Criminal
Code

acknowledges at least twelve articles under
Prita was released from detention on June 3
the chapter of defamation (Article 310 –
and ordered to remain under city arrest due
Article 321).
to “humanitarian reasons” before facing

court on June 25 for her criminal
There are three elements required for an act
defamation
trial.
There,
before
the
to be considered defamatory: first, a good
prosecutors or defendants had even
reputation must be attacked. Secondly, the
presented their witnesses, the judges threw
act must have been deliberate and finally,
the case out in a preliminary ruling,
the act must have taken place before the
claiming prosecutors could not apply the
public. According to the doctrine and
ITE law.
jurisprudences, the extent to which the act

caused harm depends on the view of the
The judges thought that the law was not yet
public. The act must result in harm
effective since the Government Regulation
according to the community in which it was
has not yet been enacted. Even before this
carried out.
final trial session, the Attorney General

Office (AGO) had begun investigating the
An individual can defend themselves against
Banten Provincial Prosecutor’s Office for
an accusation of slander if they prove it was
malpractice
and
potential
corruption
conducted in self-defence or in the general
throughout the case.
interest of the public. Furthermore, if they

can prove the statements made are true
THE DEFAMATION LAW AND THE ITE LAW
then there is no basis for a defamation

charge.
Defamation is literally defined as an/some

act(s) damaging one’s good reputation and
In Indonesia’s legal system, defamation is
dignity.
The
early
development
of
not clearly defined. As the Criminal Code is
defamation regulations stem back to 500
essentially a document from the era of
BC, as seen in the “Twelve Tables”
colonial rule, most of the articles in place on
legislation that was the basis for ancient
defamation have not been updated and
Roman law. Even early on, defamation
essentially act as a way for the ruling
regulations were used as a tool by
government to limit freedom of expression
governments to strengthen their authority
and speech. This is especially problematic
and repress free speech and equality.
for modern-day media. The laws are not
During the Augustan Age (63BC- 14AD) the
clear enough in most circumstances, and
number of defamation trials significantly
allow the ruling bodies to restrict the
increased. Through generations, it was
community’s access to information.
bequeathed to several legal systems in other

countries, such as England with the
Articles 27 and Article 45 of the ITE Law,
Common Law systems and France as one of
which was passed in March 2008, stipulate
the key countries of the European
that anybody who deliberately or otherwise
Continental system (Civil Law system).
distributes
defamatory
electronic

documents can face up to six years in jail.
The law was formulated by the House of
Representatives commission overseeing
L E M B A G A B A N T U A N H U K U M M A S Y A R A K A T

---

C A V E A T | june 2009 | 5
information and foreign affairs and was to
guaranteed compensation if the goods or
be accommodating to internet users and
services they receive are not in the same
protect the public from various misuses of
manner as what was agreed.
the internet.


This includes the right to file a complaint, a
KEY ISSUES REGARDING THE ARREST
right that Prita almost went to jail for

exercising.
While
she
was
released
The most alarming realisation to emerge
eventually and the charges dropped,
from
the
ordeal
surrounding
Prita
perhaps in other case (read below for
Mulyasari’s arrest is that the legal system,
examples) the defendant will not be so
particularly laws regarding defamation, is
lucky. The fact that Prita, an ordinary
still being wielded to serve those in power
mother, found herself defending her
at the expense of ordinary individuals.
individual rights against not only an

exclusive hospital run by a tycoon but also
For human rights activists, legal experts, a
the judiciary is unforgivable. These laws are
selection of judges and politicians and
in place to protect those weaker individuals
eventually the public, the concern was that
at risk from attacks from large, powerful
the charges violated the right to freedom of
corporations, and the judiciary should have
expression, which is guaranteed nationally
backed those with less bargaining power.
under Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution and a

raft of other laws.
The course of action taken by law enforcers,

prosecution and the judiciary has set a
Freedom of opinion and expression is the
dangerous precedent for those wishing to
cornerstone of any democratic society. In
defend their right to legitimately complain.
Indonesia, Article 28 (f) of the 1945
What
is
there
stopping
any
local
Constitution states that every citizen has the
government
from
throwing
criminal
right to own, express and spread opinions in
defamation suits at anybody expressing a
speech or in writing through print or
complaint about public health or facility
electronic media. The state, under the
services?
Constitution, is
fully
responsible
for

ensuring the rights of its citizens and
On 9 June, 2009, legislators responding to
protecting
them
against
mechanisms
this case pledged to pass the public service
designed to repress their freedom of
bill before the end of their tenure in
individual expression. This basic right is
October, which could in the future prevent
also protected under Article 25 of Law No.
discrimination
and
inequality
from
39 year 1999 regarding Human Rights.
occurring as it did against Prita. The bill will

punish officials who provide poor services
Prita’s denial of expression in this case is
and will handle complaints
Freedom of opinion and
closely linked in with her role as both a
from unsatisfied users at
consumer and an ordinary citizen. If
an official complaints desk.
expression is the cornerstone
anything, this case highlights the shaky
According to Article 37 of
of any democratic society. In
position of service users in Indonesia and
the bill, service providers
Indonesia, Article 28 (f) of the
the willingness of the judiciary to renege on
will be obliged to follow up
1945 Constitution states that
its obligations to protect citizens.
every complaint within a
every citizen has the right to

set period of time, and
own, express and spread
A democracy should ensure the rights of
customers can file suit
opinions in speech or in
consumers by allowing them to demand the
against the provider if the
writing through print or
services they are entitled to. In Indonesia,
case
is
not
handled
electronic media.
Law No. 8 year 1999 regarding Consumer
satisfactorily.
Protection states consumers have the right

to be heard when it comes to their opinion
One ongoing disparity with the defamation
and complaints about the goods or service
law is that it can only properly be harnessed
they
have
used.
Further,
they
are
by the wealthy. While Omni International
Hospital was able to demand billions in
L E M B A G A B A N T U A N H U K U M M A S Y A R A K A T

---

C A V E A T | june 2009 | 6
reparations from Prita through the use of
As we have examined, there are laws that
top legal teams, Prita has so far been unable
allowed Prita to make her opinions heard,
to launch a countersuit. Why has Omni
and those laws should have been taken into
International
gone
unpunished
for
consideration when prosecutors decided to
providing such poor services in the first
use the ITE Law. The Human Rights Law
place? Furthermore, their actions will be
guarantees people the right to voice and
considered illegal when this bill goes
spread their opinions through speech or in
through (although arguably they are illegal
writing through print or electronic media.
even now) and they have caused Prita
National
Human
Rights
Commission
considerable harm, both mentally through
(Komnas HAM) has argued that the libel
the trial and detention and physically
clauses in Article 27 are not in line with the
through poor service.
Indonesian Constitution, Law No. 39 year

1999 regarding Human Rights and Law No.
Another concern raised in this case is that
12 year 2005 on the Ratification of the
the government has clearly failed to
International Covenant on Civil and Political
adequately educate the public about the ITE
Rights.
Law. This relatively new law, while being

known perhaps to internet providers and
While a charge of defamation can be
web companies, was passed without an
brought forward if the accused actively
effective awareness campaign to inform the
defamed with malicious intent, that can
very people it was originally designed to
hardly be said for Prita’s case. The fact the
protect of its existence. As Adrianus Meliala,
statements she made criticising Omni
a
prominent
criminologist
from
the
International Hospital were put in an email
University of Indonesia said, it was ironic
and addressed to friends immediately
the public only became aware of the law
suggests that ‘deliberate’ slander of the
after it was used in a case outside its main
hospital were not her original motive. Also,
purpose, which is to protect consumers
she was not in a position to gain anything
from cyber crime.
from malicious slander so it can hardly be

argued that was her intent.
Law enforcers also were unfamiliar with the

terms and clauses of this relatively new
Another problematic aspect that arises from
regulation. As the case exploded in publicity
the email itself is that there is no regulation
and the specifics of the ITE Law became
in the ITE Law that separates public or
public, National Police Spokesman Inspector
private spaces. While Prita’s email wound
General Abubakar Nataprawira said:
up in chat rooms and on blogs and forums,

she played no part in actively spreading the
“The police acted on prosecutors’ directions.
message. The content of the email was
They asked us to check if it was possible to
essentially private, thus making a claim that
use the ITE Law against Prita by asking an
the defamatory remarks were made public
expert witness, and according to that expert,
hard to prove and baseless in this case.
Prita could be charged under the law.” (The

Jakarta Post, 5 June 2009).
OTHER CASES AND ISSUES


It has been fairly firmly established
Prita’s case, while generating huge amounts
charging Prita with a violation of the ITE
of public protest, was not particularly
Law was a baseless and unsubstantiated
unique or new to Indonesia. There have
charge stemming from the police and
been
several
other
instances
where
prosecutors’ misinterpretation of the law.
members of the public have been slapped
First and foremost, the law should not have
with defamation suits for complaining about
been used in isolation when trying a
services or treatment at the hands of large
defamation case, as has since been argued
corporations.
by Supreme Court judges and legal experts.


L E M B A G A B A N T U A N H U K U M M A S Y A R A K A T

---

C A V E A T | june 2009 | 7
In 2006 three kiosk owners at the
letter on December 2 and 3, 2006. This time
International Trade Center (ITC) Mangga
Duta Pertiwi alleged she had defamed the
Dua - Khoe Seng Seng, Pan Esther, and Kwee
company and sued her, where she faced 6
Meng Luan a.k.a Winny – discovered their
months in prison.
properties in the ITC building were built on

land owned by the city administration and
In Fifi’s case, the complaint in question did
not building developer PT Duta Pertiwi. The
not constitute malicious intent to defame,
land
had
only
been
lent
by
the
nor was it acting outside the public interest.
administration
to
the
company
for
International human rights standards on
management reasons, but if it decided to
freedom of expression have concluded that
take it back, the tenants would have lost
imprisonment should not be imposed
their properties and ownership titles. While
except in the most extreme circumstances
the company claimed innocence, in another
where there is clear, identifiable intent to
case involving the developer the court ruled
commit lawless, and malicious slander.
that it had concealed information about land

ownership.
A major concern emerging from these cases

is that the mechanisms of the media are
Infuriated by what they believed was a
being stifled and silenced by a pervasive
manipulative deal, the vendors sent protest
fear of criminal reprisals and defamation
letters to several national newspapers
suits. The threat these large corporations
between
September
and
November
pose via defamation suits to media
accusing Duta Pertiwi Ltd of misleading
publications and blogs ultimately cripple
them into buying the land. In December
freedom of the press. The judiciary and
2007, over a year later, Duta Pertiwi Ltd
politicians enacting these various laws need
filed defamation lawsuits against the
to seriously consider the wider implications
owners of the shops and apartments in the
their rulings have on freedom and
complex.
democracy in Indonesia.


The owners and the company have been
--
suing and countersuing each other ever

since, with the North Jakarta District Court

passing eight verdicts so far. In seven civil

cases, the court turned down the civil

lawsuits (act which breaks the law – or tort

as known in the common law system), but

in the last it ruled in favour of the plaintiff.

Khoe Seng Seng was finally found guilty on

June 4, 2009, of ‘defaming’ the developer

and ordered to pay IDR 1 billion in

compensation, down from the IDR 11 – 17

billion being demanded by the company’s

legal team. Pan Esther was also ordered to

pay the same amount. Winny was cleared of

all charges.



Fifi Tanang was the owner of a property at

the same Mangga Dua Apartement complex.

After she discovered the same discrepancy

with ownership involving the land she had

just purchased, she wrote a letter of

complaint and sent it to the Jakarta Post,

Kompas,
Suara
Pembaruan,
Bisnis

Indonesia, Media Indonesia and Warta Kota.

Later, the Investor Daily re-published the

L E M B A G A B A N T U A N H U K U M M A S Y A R A K A T

---

C A V E A T | june 2009 | 8
ADDITIONAL FEATURE

ROLLING THE DICE ON
CHILDREN’S RIGHTS

“We were playing a ‘guess the coin’ game. All we were doing was guessing whether a number or picture
would appear. We have promised that we will be good boys and not be naughty anymore. Now it has been
almost 30 days. We really miss our homes.”
- Takim bin Asan, 11 years old, one of the detained children.

“The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall conform with the law and be used only as a measure
of last resort.”
- Article 16 paragraph (3) Law No. 23 year 2003 regarding Child Protection.

“We often catch [shoeshine boys and other informal sector workers], and they keep loitering in the airport
area. So we’re now rounding them up as a form of shock therapy to deter other workers at the airport.”
- Airport security head Taufik Hidayat, responding to why 10 children were arrested for ‘gambling’ and
are now in prison awaiting trial (The Jakarta Post, June 19, 2009).

GENERAL BACKGROUND
questioning
and
were
charged
with

violating the Criminal Code.
On May 29, 2009, ten children were

arrested at Soekarno-Hatta International
The next day they were transferred to
Airport for allegedly gambling within the
children’s prison, where they remained
airport facility. Aged between 11 and 19
until they saw the District Prosecutor on
years, they were subsequently charged with
June 25. While the District Prosecutor
violating Article 303 of the Indonesian
initially ruled the children would remain in
Criminal Code regarding gambling and were
custody until their trial, pressure from the
detained at Tangerang Children’s Prison,
Community Legal Aid Institute (LBH
where they remained until released on June
Masyarakat), who is representing the
26 to await trial.
children, saw them released from detention

on the morning of June 26. They are
The children - Rohsidik bin Gani and
expected to face a trial in early July where
Sarifudin bin Basar, aged 11, Rosadi Takim
they either receive a suspended sentence or
bin Asan and Abdul Dofar bin Subroto, aged
a maximum five years in prison.
12, Abdul Rohim bin Ali, Bahrudin bin

Basar,
Musa
bin
Asan
and
Irfan
INDONESIAN JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
Ardiayansyah bin Imran, aged 14, Dalih bin

Salim (known as Rojali), 17 and Abdul
In Indonesia, the juvenile justice system
Rohman bin Ali, 19 - come from
encompasses all elements of criminal justice
impoverished families and work illegally as
related to the handling of child delinquency
shoe-shiners at the airport to earn a living.
cases and is regulated under Article 4 of

Law No 3 year 1997 regarding the Juvenile
The children, having been routinely chased
Court. Under both this law and Article 1 of
from the main airport area by security,
Law No 23 year 2002 on the Protection of
began playing a guessing game with other
Children, an individual is classified as a child
local children involving a coin and bets of
if they are between 8 and 17 years of age.
around IDR 1,000 to IDR 7,000. When

airport security tracked them down, they
Laws in place for the protection of
were taken to the nearest police station for
delinquent
children
call
for
special
consideration
and
treatment
to
be
L E M B A G A B A N T U A N H U K U M M A S Y A R A K A T

---

C A V E A T | june 2009 | 9
employed when dealing with crimes
the case. Juveniles given a suspended
involving minors, though this rarely
sentence receive a jail term but are not sent
happens in practice. While the juvenile
to prison. Instead, they must not commit
court can rule that a child face less punitive
another crime within a set period of time or
action, the reality is criminal sanctions are
will face prison. This way, the child is able to
more often employed.
attend school, stay with their family and

avoid the already overcrowded and poorly
For juvenile delinquents facing criminal
funded prison system where disease, abuse
sanctions and the legal system for the first
and potential for further crime is imminent
time, the police play a significant role in the
and a very real threat.
initial stages. Police officers essentially
determine whether the juvenile should be
released without charge or face the next
stage of prosecution.

If the arrest is deemed necessary, the public
prosecutor then decide once more whether
the offender should be released, or face the
juvenile court.

Judges have four options under the Law for
dealing with a defendant facing criminal
sanctions:
1. Imprisonment or suspended sentence
– For the latter, a sentence is given but
the juvenile does not have to go to

prison. They must not commit another
Figure 1: Ten shoe-sine boys in the Children's Prison, Tangerang.
crime within a set period, or the jail
Christine Tambunan/LBH Masyarakat. 2009
sentence will be enacted.
2. Confinement (kurungan) – similar to

imprisonment, though in different
Despite there being clauses within the
facility usually for sentences of less
juvenile justice system allowing police and
than one year;
public
prosecutors
to
release
child
3. Fines – monetary punishments;
offenders without sending them to prison,
4. Monitoring
–
probation
style
such as through a suspended sentence, law
punishment.
enforcers still tend to adopt a punitive and

harsh approach toward juvenile crimes.
If the judge decides not to impart criminal
Consequently, a significant number of
sanctions on a child, they can instead take
children are sent to prison and detention
another course of action under the Law:
centres for petty crimes every year.
1. The child may be sent back to their

parents or family;
According
to
the
2008
Amnesty
2. The child may be sent to a government
International Briefing to the UN Committee
institution to learn vocational skills;
against Torture regarding Indonesia, there
3. The child may be handed over to a
are more than 3,000 children aged 8-17
social
organization
or
social
currently in detention across Indonesia.
department involved specifically with
This figure does not include children
education programs.
detained in holding cells at police stations.

With only 16 special juvenile detention
In terms of criminal sanctions, the option
centres in the country, the majority of
for a suspended sentence acts as a
juvenile delinquents are detained in adult
compromise
between
prosecutors
prisons during the investigation period
demanding
punishment,
defendants
before trial.
pleading for release and judges weighing up
L E M B A G A B A N T U A N H U K U M M A S Y A R A K A T

---