Children in conflict with the law occupy a unique and vulnerable position
in the Indonesian criminal‐justice system. Although Law No. 11 of 2012 on the
Juvenile Criminal Justice System (UU SPPA) requires that any response prioritise
the child’s best interests, the crime of murder continues to test how those ideals are
implemented in practice. Judges are therefore expected to balance the demands of
justice, deterrence and rehabilitation when sentencing a child who has taken
another person’s life. The research problem addressed is: what are the fundamental
considerations used by judges in sentencing children convicted of murder under
Indonesian law? This study employs normative juridical research, drawing on
primary legal materials (the 1945 Constitution, the Criminal Code/KUHP,
UU SPPA, relevant court decisions) and secondary materials (textbooks, journals,
and an interview with a juvenile-court judge). The data are analysed qualitatively
through systematic interpretation of statutes and case law to uncover the legal
principles applied. The analysis shows that judges consistently invoke three clusters
of considerations: (1) the seriousness of the offence and the resulting social harm;
(2) the child’s personal circumstances—including age, psychological maturity,
family environment and prospects for reform; and (3) the mandate of UU SPPA to
prioritise diversion and rehabilitation. However, the weight accorded to each factor
varies, leading to disparate sentencing outcomes and raising questions about
consistency and proportionality. Sentencing children for murder in Indonesia
remains a delicate exercise in balancing retributive and restorative aims. While
judges recognise the rehabilitative spirit of UU SPPA, they often prioritise public
safety and deterrence when the act involves severe violence. A clearer sentencing
guideline that harmonises these interests is necessary to ensure that punishment
remains effective yet conducive to the child’s reintegration.