PROBLEMATIKA PENERAPAN NORMA TINDAK PIDANA PERDAGANGAN ORANG DALAM PRAKTIK PROSTITUSI

The crime of trafficking in persons is a global phenomenon which is one of the most common cases in Indonesia. In some cases the crime of trafficking in person is intertwined with the practice of prostitution. This is as happened in the case of case Number 493/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Smn. From the explanation above, researchers are interested in further researching how problematic the application of the crime of trafficking in persons in prostitution is. The researcher has a problem formulation, namely how is the meaning of the practice of trafficking in persons by the prosecutor in the decision and why the interpretation of the law by the judge and prosecutor in responding to the indictment of the criminal act of trafficking in persons in the case with the decision number: 493/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Smn is different. With qualitative research methods, types of field research, descriptive legal research, and using an empirical juridical approach. This study mentions the following. First, the Prosecutor considered the case to be the crime of trafficking in persons on the grounds that all the facts at the trial showed that all of them had fulfilled the elements in the crime of trafficking in persons article. Second, however, the panel of judges did not see any element of coercion in the case, so the panel of judges decided with the article facilitating ordinary obscene acts. Based on this research, the Panel of Judges handed down the decision "intentionally causing/facilitating obscene acts by other people with other people, and making it a quest/habit". From this decision, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 1 (one) year 4 (four) months. The verdict of the panel of judges differs from the indictment given by the public prosecutor, namely the public prosecutor considers the crime committed by the defendant to be a criminal act of trafficking in persons as stated in the first alternative indictment. The panel of judges did not see that all the elements contained in the crime of trafficking in persons law were fulfilled, so the panel of judges could not decide with the first alternative charge. However, the panel of judges considered it a crime contained in Article 296 of the Criminal Code. From the non-acceptance of the demands by the public prosecutor, this shows that there are various legal interpretations by law enforcers in responding to the cas