Suspension of detention is regulated in Article 31 of Law no. 8 of 1981 concerningCriminal Procedure Law, which states that at the request of a suspect or defendant,an investigator or public prosecutor or judge, in accordance with their respectiveauthority, can hold a suspension of detention with or without a guarantee of moneyor a guarantee of person, based on the conditions. which is determined. Theserequirements are regulated in Article 21 paragraph (1) of the Criminal ProcedureCode or referred to as subjective requirements and Article 21 paragraph (4) KUHAPor so-called objective requirements. The subjective view carried out by the PoldaMetro Jaya investigators in suspending detention of a case (GA) is not in accordanceor continuous with Article 21 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Codeaccording to the author's subjective view. Against (GA) is charged with Article 4paragraph (1) jo. Article 29 and / or Article 8 of Law no. 44 of 2008 concerningPornography. The criminal regulation that ensnares (GA) is in the form ofimprisonment for more than five years. If seen from the objective requirements, thisis not in accordance with Article 21 paragraph (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.Article 21 paragraph (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code states that the conditions fordetention of a suspect or defendant cannot be withdrawn, the suspect's ordefendant's relationship with a prison sentence of more than five years

This study focuses on sexual crimes in the form of obscene acts against children. According to R. Soesilo, obscene acts are all acts that violate decency or decency, or can also constitute a heinous act that is included in the environment of sexual lust. The problem lies in the criminal sanctions regulated between the two regulations. Criminal sanctions regulated in the PA Law and the PKS Law have differences in terms of the length of the sentence, the amount of the fine, and others. Then there will also be a test of the PA Law and the TPKS Law against the theory of the purpose of punishment. The research method used is a normative research method, namely research conducted with reference to the principles, legal concepts, legal norms contained in the legislation. The results of this research are that in terms of the comparison of the length of imprisonment or the number of fines, the PA Law is more effective than the TPKS Law. There are also articles regulated in the PA Law that are not regulated in the TPKS Law, such as Articles 76D and 76E. In the article, it is more specific how to commit obscene acts, namely by means of "threats of violence and violence." Both the PA Law and the TPKS Law adhere to a combined theory. In the PA Law and the TPKS Law, the main punishments regulated are imprisonment, fines and payment of restitution to victims. If it is related to the combined theory, then the PA Law and the TPKS Law have fulfilled the purpose of the combined theory. However, in the TPKS Law, in addition to stipulating the main punishment, it also regulates additional crimes, namely revocation of child custody or revocation of guardianship, announcement of the identity of the perpetrator and/or confiscation of profits and/or assets obtained from criminal acts of sexual violence. With the provision of additional penalties in the TPKS Law, it can be seen that the types of criminal sanctions in the TPKS Law provide more complete understanding of the combined theory. So that it can be concluded that the TPKS Law in terms of types of criminal sanctions is more comprehensive in its arrangement.

Pasal 21 ayat (2) huruf e Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1990 Tentang Sumber Daya Alam Hayati Dan Ekosistemnya selanjutanya disebut UU Konservasi, menyebutkan ”Setiap orang dilarang untuk mengambil, merusak, memusnahkan, memperniagakan, menyimpan/memiliki telur dan atau sarang satwa yang dilindingi”. Pelanggaran terhadap ketentuan tersebut diatur dalam pasal 40 ayat (2) yang memuat sanksi pidana paling lama 5 tahun dan denda paling banyak RP. 100.000.000. Namun kenyataanya di Wilayah Konservasi Aroen Meubanja Kabupaten Aceh Jaya masih terjadi pelanggaran terhadap ketentuan tersebut.             Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan mengapa sanksi pidana perniagaan telur penyu tidak diterapkan, faktor-faktor yang menjadi kendala penerapan ketentuan tersebut dan mengetahui upaya yang dilakukan dalam penerapan ketentuan tindak pidana pernigaan telur penyu di Wilayah Konservasi. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian Yuridis Empiris dengan metode deskriptif yang menggunakan data kepustakaan (library Research) sebagai data sekunder dan penelitian lapangan dilakukan untuk memperoleh data primer melalui wawancara dengan responden dan informan. Hasil dari penelitian ini mengemukakan bahwa di daerah konservasi Aroen Meubanja masih banyak pelanggaran terhadap Pasal 21 ayat (2) huruf e UU No 5 Tahun 1990. Terkait dengan penegakan hukum berkenaan dengan tindak pidana perniagaan telur penyu juga belum diterapkan pada wilayah tersebut. adapun faktor yang menjadi kendala penerapan regulasi yang dimaksud diakibatkan adanya regulasi pada tingkat gampong yang penormaannya kontra dengan norma yang terdapat dalam UU terkait perbuatan perniagaan telur penyu, pengetahuan masyarakat yang masih buruk tentang konsumsi telur penyu, nilai ekonomis dari perniagaan telur penyu, serta kesadaran hukum masyarakat yang masih rendah. Sehingga di sarankan untuk merevisi dan melakukan sinkronisasi antara aturan pada tingkat gampong terkait perbuatan perniagaan telur penyu dengan pengaturan pada UU, diperlukan sosialisasi dari pemerintah kepada masyarakat di kawasan konservasi tentang edukasi-edukasi seputar konsumsi penyu dalam perspektif kesehatan, serta diperlukan pula program-program sosialisasi yang bertujuan menumbuhkan  sedaran hukum masyarkat. Keyword: Pidana, Perniagaan Telur Penyu