The world has entered the era of modernization and affects increasingly sophisticated technology and information, but this has resulted in many individuals who abuse the internet as a means of committing crimes, one of which often occurs is cyberbullying  or (cyberbullying). The crime of cyberbullying  has been regulated in Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning the ITE Law and the Criminal Code (KUHP) which is elaborated to become the basis for authorized law enforcement in enforcement efforts. This research is an empirical juridic research. The location of the research in the East Nusa Tenggara regional police area, the data collection method is by interviews, documentation studies and observations. The collected data is then analyzed and then presented in a qualitative descriptive manner. The results of the research on law enforcement through 2 stages, among others, preventive efforts and repressive efforts, then inhibiting factors in law enforcement, among others, limited budget and tools for investigation and investigation so that it is difficult to find evidence if the perpetrator uses a fake account without personal data or phone number, besides that Article 74 of the Criminal Code has regulated the expiration of the complaint offense so that the victim must immediately report the crime he has experienced. As for the suggestion, it is hoped that the consistent active role of law enforcers to socialize rules and ethics in the use of social media and maximize law enforcement efforts for perpetrators of criminal acts to the court stage. The government can make a special formula related to the expiration of complaints for cyberbullying  cases in the ITE Law. It is hoped that the public will have a high legal awareness in the use of social media so as to prevent criminal acts committed through cyberspace.
 
 

This study aims to find out and analyze  the role of the prosecutor's office in determining the right to restitution for the crime of trafficking in persons based on case number 27/Pid.sus/2019/PN.Kpg. This research is a normative legal research (library research) supported by empirical data. This research focuses on the Role of the Prosecutor's Office in Determining the Right to Restitution for the Crime of Trafficking in Persons. The approach used in this study is the case approach. This research uses primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials. This legal research is analyzed using the  Content Analysis legal material analysis technique. The results of this study show that (1) The existence of restitution is contained in Law Number 21 of 2007 concerning Trafficking, Article 4 of Perma No. 1 of 2022, and is contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. (2) The role of the prosecutor's office in determining the right to restitution of victims in the crime of trafficking in persons is to inform the victim of their rights in submitting restitution applications to the court, so that the suggestions that can be given to law enforcers, especially the Public Prosecutor, should be given socialization or training regarding Law Number 21 of 2007 concerning the Eradication of Trafficking in Persons, especially the provision of restitution,  so that there is a common perception in handling cases of human trafficking.

Children are the nation's assets as the successors of the nation's founders to make the country a developed country. As the nation's successors, children must receive comprehensive and massive protection. In the Child Protection Law, it is stated that children need special protection in various situations. For children who are in conflict with the law, the State provides legitimacy in the hope of changing children's behavior and the involvement of many parties in Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System or later known as the SPPA Law. The case taken by the author is a case where it is explained that a child in conflict with the law is a recidivist or has committed a repeat crime. Child recidivism is basically the same as recidivism in general, the difference is that the perpetrator here is a child. Repetition of criminal acts here means criminal acts committed by children, whether similar or dissimilar criminal acts, including criminal acts completed through diversion. It is explained that the case written is a case of repetition of criminal acts or recidivism committed by children of criminals. The legal process for the criminal act of abuse committed by Rui Vicente alias Aroni's child no longer takes the diversion route because the perpetrator's child is a recidivist. In this regard, child perpetrators are being processed in court by holding trials which are charged under Article 351 paragraph (1) of the Indonesian Criminal Code. UU no. 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System.