The Power of Evidence of Victims in Immoral Criminal Procedure in the West Pasaman Court

Abstract

Referring to Article 185 paragraph (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code which in essence explains that "the testimony of witnesses who are not sworn eventhough in accordance withone another, does not constitute evidence, but if the statements are in accordance with statements from sworn witnesses, it can be used as additional tools other valid proof. This raises problems in the level of practice when the childis confronted as a victim of an immoral crime, usually there are no witnesses who see and hear the criminal events committed by the perpetrator sofcrime. Instead, there is only child (not yet capable of law) as a witness who experienced the crime. However, the child's information is only used as a guide or only used to streng then the belief of the Judge because the information given by the child is considered not to meet the requirements as a witness information according to the Criminal Procedure Code. In this regard, we can see and analyze the judges' judgmentrelated to the power of proof of children witness from victims within immoral criminalaction in the jurisdiction of West Pasaman District Court. The formulation of the problem in this study is How is the power of witness information by victim's child in the case of immoral crime in the jurisdiction of the West Pasaman District Court ?. This research is a normative juridical research through case approach, law approach and conceptual approach. This research is descriptive. The results showed that The power of proof of witness information by victim'schild in immoral acts has diverse legal force. First, it is based on whether a Victim's Child can be sworn in court, so that the information by victim's childis recognized to have the same legal force as the witness's statement in the event that the victim's child can be sworn in providing information. Second, the information by the victim'schild Streng thens the judge's conviction or atleast provides guide for the judge to support the evidence of alleged criminal acts of immorality. Third, the judge did not judge the information by the victim's child to have the power of proof be cause it was considered to be incompatible and independent.