The principle of best interest for children requires sanctions of deprivation of liberty as a last resort. Therefore, the principle of the best interests of children must be considered in the resolution of cases of children in conflict with the law. This article, which focuses on the decision of the Tanjung Karang High Court, discusses the functionalization of the best interests principle for children in conflict with the law and the implications of their application. This article concludes, judges in deciding cases of children in conflict with the law in general have not considered the principle of the best interests of the child. Of the 22 cases of children in conflict with the law at the Tanjung Karang High Court, only three decisions that can be categorized have considered the principle of the best interests of the child. Of the three decisions, two were sentenced not prison and one sentenced to prison. The application of the best interest principle for children in conflict with the law can have both positive and negative implications. It has positive implications, especially for offenders, because it protects children’s rights and reduces the burden of court cases and correctional institutions. But it can also have negative implications, because it is feared not to provide a deterrent effect and invite negative public perceptions of the judiciary. Abstrak Asas kepentingan terbaik bagi anak menghendaki sanksi perampasan kemerdekaan sebagai upaya terakhir. Oleh karenanya, asas kepentingan terbaik bagi anak harus menjadi pertimbangan dalam penyelesaian perkara anak yang berkonflik dengan hukum. Artikel ini, yang berfokus pada putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Tanjung Karang, membahas fungsionalisasi asas kepentingan terbaik bagi anak yang berkonflik dengan hukum dan implikasi penerapannya. Artikel ini menyimpulkan, hakim dalam memutus perkara anak yang berkonflik dengan hukum pada umumnya belum mempertimbangkan asas kepentingan terbaik bagi anak. Dari 22 perkara anak yang berkonflik dengan hukum pada Pengadilan Tinggi Tanjung Karang, hanya tiga putusan yang dapat dikategorikan telah mempertimbangkan asas kepentingan terbaik bagi anak. Dari tiga putusan tersebut, dua divonis bukan penjara dan satu divonis penjara. Penerapan asas kepentingan terbaik bagi anak yang berkonflik dengan hukum bisa berimplikasi positif sekaligus negatif. Ia berimplikasi positif terutama bagi pembuat delik, karena melindungi hak-hak anak dan mengurangi beban perkara pengadilan dan lembaga pemasyarakatan. Namun ia juga bisa berimplikasi negatif, karena dikhawatirkan tidak memberikan efek jera dan mengundang persepsi negatif masyarakat terhadap lembaga peradilan.

The economy is one aspect of human life that is vulnerable to offense and even evil in it. As the development of the electronic world and the turnover of global money increasingly fast, demanded that people connect with other parties that are banking institutions to manage the money he has. It can be utilized by the person who is not responsible for dredge profit by utilizing the weakness of the banking system both using conventional and electronic media use. The problem in this article is how the banking dispute resolution mechanism relates to consumer protection? The approach to the problem used is normative juridical with the literature study method. The results showed that the banking dispute resolution mechanism in relation to consumer protection can be through two banking dispute resolution mechanisms, namely internal dispute resolution and external dispute resolution of the dispute.

No abstract

Economic actors in the framework of developing a business as owner or patent holder can access credit from financial institutions with patents as objects of fiduciary institution. So that patents are based on the law, but were born because they had to be advance in advance between the fiduciary guarantee institution as the creditor and the inventor as the debtor The problem in this study is why patents can be used as fiduciary collateral objects and how the legal consequences for debtors who commit defaults. This research is a normative legal research. In this study, what is examined is the positive legal provisions regarding patent rights, namely Law Number 13 of 2016 concerning Patents and Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. This type of research used is descriptive with a problem approach that will be conducted normatively juridical. Patents can be used as collateral for debt by using fiduciary security institutions because patents are part of intellectual property rights where patents have economic principles that will provide economic benefits to the patent owner. Patents are classified as immovable property. The legal consequences of debtors who commit default will lead to fiduciary guarantee execution activities. Execution of fiduciary collateral is confiscation and sale of objects which are subject to fiduciary collateral. As a result of the sale of this fiduciary object in the form of a patent, the creditors lose their debts to the debtor, which means the debtor's debt has been paid off, then from the debtor's loss of patent rights he previously had such as.