Mario Dandy

Jakarta –

The public prosecutor (JPU) charged AG’s son, the defendant in the Cristalino abuse case David Ozora (17), with a sentence of 4 years in prison. Trisakti University criminal law expert, Abdul Fickar Hadjar, considered the prosecutor’s demands to be fair.

Abdul Fickar initially said that AG, who is 15 years old, has had his rights fulfilled during the juvenile justice process. Abdul Fickar said that AG had 3 privileges compared to the other two suspects, Mario Dandy Satryo (20) and Shane Lukas (19).

“Because AG is a child, there are three privileges given in the Child Protection Act. First, the trial is closed. Second, the detention at each level can only be 14 days and can be extended by the high court for 10 days. Third, the demands and sentences are only half that of adults, ” said Abdul Fickar in his statement on Saturday, (7/4/2023).

Abdul Fickar then discussed the article that the prosecutor charged with AG, namely Article 355 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1. Article 355 of the Criminal Code reads: Serious maltreatment committed with premeditation is punishable by a maximum imprisonment of twelve years.

Even though AG made physical contact in the case of serious abuse, the prosecutor believed that AG also helped Mario Dandy.

“Article 55 paragraph 1, it could be the person who committed it, could be the one who ordered it to be done, participated in or promised something to the perpetrators of the crime,” said Abdul Fickar.

Abdul Fickar believes that with the indictment of this article, the maximum prison sentence for the defendant is 12 years. However, because AG is still a minor, the maximum penalty is 6 years in prison or half of the maximum threat against an adult.

“Because of 6 years, the 4-year sentence is equal to two-thirds of the maximum sentence. In my opinion, it is quite fair if AG is prosecuted for 2/3 of the maximum sentence,” said Abdul Fickar.

AG Crying in Court

Previously, AG (15) cried while reading his plea or memorandum of defense for the demands made by the prosecutor. This was known from AG’s attorney, Mangatta Toding Allo.

“AG’s condition is certain that if he had attended earlier he would have been healthy but at the reading of the defense plea he was crying,” Mangatta told reporters at the South Jakarta District Court, Thursday (6/3).

Mangatta said AG also conveyed an apology in the defense note that was read out. He said AG’s parents also read the memorandum of defense.

“So we, a team of legal advisors, conveyed it ourselves, the parents of AG’s child also read out their own plea, which was composed by the child himself, conveying how he felt about the trial in this case. He also said always and repeated his prayer for David’s son,” he said.

However, AG’s cry did not make the prosecutor melt. Prosecutors persisted in their position, demanding that AG be sentenced to four years in prison.

The firm stance of the prosecutor was revealed by the South Jakarta District Court (PN) Public Relations. In response to AG’s plea, the prosecutor is said to have maintained the charge verbally.

“Well, after the defendant’s legal adviser delivered the reading of the pledoi, then after it was finished, the judge gave the public prosecutor the opportunity to convey whether to respond in writing or orally. That’s right. And it turned out that the public prosecutor responded verbally. The main point is that they, the public prosecutor, stick to demands. It was conveyed verbally,” said the South Jakarta District Court Public Relations Officer, Djuyamto, to reporters at the South Jakarta District Court.

(aud/fjp)