T The perpetrator of the crime of sexual intercourse in Decision Number 858/Pid.Sus/2022/PN BJM was only sentenced by the judge in the form of basic punishment and additional sanctions in the form of chemical castration without being accompanied by rehabilitation, based on the provisions of Article 81A paragraph (3) of Law (UU) No. 17 of 2016 which clearly regulates, the imposition of chemial castration sanctions, accompanied by rehabilitation. So the problems are 1) How are the provisions of additional sanctions of chemical castration and rehablitation againts the perpetrators of sexual intercourse in Decision Number 858/Pid.Sus/2022/PN BJM according to Law No.17 of 2016? 2) Is the purpose of additional sanctions of chemical castration without rehabilitation in Decision Number 858/Pid.Sus/2022/PN BJM in accordance with Law Number 17 of 2016? The research method used is normative juridical, interviews ar conducted as supporting data, and the data is processed qualitatively, and conclusions are drawn using deductive logic. The result of the study illustrate that 1) The provisions of additional sanctions of chemical castration and rehabilitation againts the perpetrators of copulation are an inseparable unity, clearly regulated in Article 81A Paragraph (3) of Law No. 17 of 2016; 2) The purpose of additional sanctions of chemical castration without rehabilitation in Decision Number 858/Pid.Sus/2022/PN BJM is considered not in accordance with Law No. 17 of 2016 concerning Child Protection, because additional sanctions in the form of chemical castration do not include rehabilitation which should be an important unity in Article 81A paragraph (3) of Law No. 17 of 2016.