This study addresses the legal tension between the application of the ultimum remedium principle and the principle of the best interests of the child, set against public demands for retribution through the imposition of maximum sentences on Children in Conflict with the Law (ABH). The study aims to analyze the legal basis, legal factors, and non-legal considerations used by judges in imposing the maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment on children. It employs a normative-juridical legal research method, utilizing statutory, case, and contextual approaches through a literature review. Data were analyzed using a descriptive-analytical qualitative method, focusing on Pangkalan Balai District Court Decision No. 20/Pid.Sus-Anak/2020/PN Pkb and Makassar District Court Decision No. 5/Pid.Sus-Anak/2023/PN Mks (in conjunction with Makassar High Court Decision No. 06/Pid.Sus-Anak/2023/Pt Mks). The findings reveal inconsistencies and a tendency toward legal positivism (penal positivism), wherein the imposition of the maximum sentence was influenced by the severity of the crime's consequences and errors in the legal qualification of the offense at the trial court level errors that were subsequently corrected on appeal. In conclusion, the validity of imposing the maximum formal sentence hinges heavily on the precision of the qualification of the underlying offense (predicate crime) specifically those punishable by death or life imprisonment under Article 81 paragraph (6) of the Juvenile Criminal Justice System Law (UU SPPA). These implications necessitate judicial meticulousness and a reformulation of sentencing guidelines to ensure that maximum sentencing does not become a tool for retribution, but rather continues to prioritize the child's rehabilitation.