Search

This study aims to provide an analysis of the many cases of distribution of non-food animal meat for consumption purposes that have recently received attention, such as the rampant sale of cat and dog meat which often occurs in society. Cats and dogs are pets kept by humans. These animals are not included in the consumption of livestock. Consumption of non-food animals is a heinous act that can become a zoonotic vector. This study uses normative legal research methods with several approaches, namely the statutory approach and the conceptual approach. The results obtained are that there are laws and regulations related to the distribution of non-food animal meat for consumption purposes, but some of these regulations do not mention the imposition of sanctions on the distribution of non-food animal meat for consumption purposes. Criminal laws should provide for the torture of animals and the distribution of non-food animal meat for consumption and sanctions. This is considering the dangers of consuming non-food animals which have the potential to harm the wider community. How to cite item: Sabrina, Nahdiya. “Formulation of Criminal Law Policy for Distribution of Non-Food Animal Meat for Consumption.” Jurnal Cakrawala Hukum. 14 no. 1 (2023): 28-35. DOI: 10.26905/idjch.v14i1.10049.

The aspect of compensation is very crucial in land acquisition for development for the public interest. The Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 of 2012 concerning Land Procurement for Development in the Public Interest (PTBPKU Law) is "drowned" by the many cases of land disputes that are so complex. The regulations regarding land acquisition contained in the PTBPKU Law are indeed correct, but when viewed in terms of substance, they still leave several separate notes. Several things need to be studied more deeply, primarily related to the basic concept of acquiring land rights for the public interest and compensation assessment. This paper aims to provide legal protection for land rights holders who reject the amount of payment in the PTBPKU Law and compare it with the latest regulation of land acquisition, namely the Job Creation Act. The writing method used is a normative juridical method using the Statute Approach and the Comparative Approach. The PTBPKU Law, as amended by the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation, has not been able to fully protect the holders of land rights affected by land acquisition for development in the public interest. Regulators should pay more attention to matters relating to compensation for land rights holders. How to cite item: Budiastanti, D., Laila, K., Sabrina, N., Wisnuwardhani, D., Wisuda, S. (2022). Compensation for land rights holders according to the land acquisition law. Jurnal Cakrawala Hukum, 13(2), 135-144. DOI:https://doi.org/10.26905/idjch.v13i2.7970.

The criminal justice system in Indonesia is now more concerned with criminal prosecution so that the rights of victims of criminal offenses are often overlooked. This creates dissatisfaction with the self of criminal act. Because what the victim really wants is not only the punishment of the perpetrator but also the return of the rights he should have before the crime. Through several laws and regulations, namely Law No. 31 of 2014 on the Amendment of Law No. 13 of 2006 on the Protection of Witnesses and Victims that became the main umbrella of the protection of victims of crime, as well as Law No. 23 of 2004 on the Elimination of Violence in the Household, has actually been regulated regarding the protection and rights of victims of this crime. The Witness and Victim Protection Act explicitly places the state through LPSK as the main party providing protection for Witnesses and Victims. However, there are articles in the Law which need further explanation because there are juridical issues of unclear norms that regulate, so there are difficulties when applied in factual cases.

The act of a man releasing responsibility for a woman’s pregnancy outside of marriage is an act that deemed deplorable in society, and of course, bring harm to women and children. But until this moment there is no rule that can be used to ensure the perpetrator or to force him to account for the act. By not regulating this act the state would surely let this act continue so that more and more children become victims. Whereas this act is contrary to the mandate of law no. 35 the year 2014 regarding the amendment to the law no 23 the year 2002 on child protection.