Sentencing Narcotics Cases below the Statutory Minimum

Law number 35/2009 on Narcotics establishes a specific minimum punishment. Despite this, instances occur where judges impose sentences below these mandated minimums, leading to concerns about legal certainty and the potential for undermining justice. This article investigates how judges account for legal certainty when imposing sentences below the stipulated minimum for narcotics offenses. The research adopts both normative and empirical legal methodologies, utilizing literature reviews, document analysis, case studies, and interviews with key informants. The findings suggest that judges often justify lesser sentences based on several factors: the defendant's status as a drug user rather than a distributor, negative urine test results, possession of only a small amount of narcotics, and lack of evidence proving involvement in narcotics sales or intermediary activities. In their rulings, judges integrate these considerations with the applicable narcotics laws and the factual circumstances presented during the trial. Consequently, such decisions to impose sentences below the statutory minimum are grounded in well-considered legal reasoning, contributing to legal certainty in the judicial process.