Violence is not just an individual problem or a national problem, but is already a global problem, even transnational. In the context of protection of human rights, as human beings, women and children also have the same rights. Efforts to prevent or cope with a variety of behaviors and violence experienced by women and children already have received serious attention and treatment. Therefore, the approach in handling these issues must be integrated (integrated), where in addition to the legal approach should also consider non-legal approach which is precisely the cause of violence.

Masa pandemi Covid-19 merupakan masa yang sulit, bukan saja ekonomi, namun sektor lainya juga terpukul, pemerintah berupaya untuk menanggulagi semua efek yang muncul namun informasi bohong (Hoax) dimasa pandemi ini juga mengakibatkan banyak masyarakat yang merasa ketakutan dengan informasi yang salah. Penelitian ini memakai metode yuridis empiris. isi dari berita bohong (hoax) tersebut terkadang membuat masyarakat menjadi panik dan trauma terhadap berbagai peristiwa yang terjadi, seperti masalah terorisme dan masalah radikalisme. Demikian juga dengan penyebaran Covid-19 di mana hampir sebahagian besar masyarakat Indonesia sangat takut untuk terjangkit dengan virus yang mematikan ini.

Introduction: Difference or disparity in sentencing is one of the important topics in criminal law. The disparity in sentencing means that there are differences in the amount of punishment handed down by the court in cases that have the same characteristics.Purposes of the Research: The purpose of this study is to find out why there is a disparity in criminal penalties in court verdicts in cases of corruption in the misuse of village funds in Maluku.Methods of the Research: This study uses a normative juridical method.Results of the Research: Based on the results of the study, essentially the disparity in imposing criminal penalties in court verdicts on corruption cases of misuse of village funds is due to strafmaat (criminal threats) for different perpetrators.

Introduction: Discretionary authority is the authority possessed by the police as mandated by law to carry out their duties, especially in responding to social phenomena in society.Purposes of the Research:  This study aims to determine the form of the exercise of discretionary authority in the termination of an investigation, and what are the implications of the exercise of discretionary authority in the act of terminating an investigation.Methods of the Research: This study uses a normative legal research method, which aims to determine the form of the exercise of discretionary authority in the termination of an investigation, and what are the implications of the exercise of discretionary authority in the act of stopping an investigation.Results of the Research: The discretionary authority of the police in stopping investigations is the authority given as compensation for government duties carried out by investigators.

Introduction: The pretrial examination only examines the validity of legal procedures in handling cases. The question which one should be the subject of a pretrial case examination, whether the examination of the procedure, or examination of the subject matter.Purposes of the Research: This study aims to analyze and discuss of the essentially examination of pretrial cases an effort to fulfil one’s rights of the suspect according of the criminal procedure code, and Objectivity of pretrial case examination and its presence in the criminal procedure code in the future.Methods of the Research: The type of research is normative legal research. The approach used in this research are the statutory approach, conceptual approach, and case approach. The sources of legal materials used are primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. The technique of collecting legal materials are through literature study, and analysis of legal materials is qualitative.Results of the Research: The pretrial examination mechanism which is essentially an effort to fulfil one's rights in its implementation is not so broad in the sense that the examination of cases that are substantial (material aspects) in the context of actual prove of a procedure law enforcement. To obtain a material truth, the judge in examining existing pretrial case, has not been able to explore the truth in assessing any evidence submitted by the applicant and the respondent in a pretrial case, which also means that in some pretrial case examinations, judge are still limited to pretrial examination, namely regarding the procedure as stipulated in article 77 of the Criminal Procedure Code.