Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This research aims to explain differences in judges' decisions regarding the imposition of sentences below the minimum in narcotics offense cases. The main focus of this research is the judge's thoughts when adjudicating narcotics cases which causes inequality in sentencing and determining appropriate sentencing criteria that the judge can take into consideration so that there is no inequality in punishment in the future. Inequality in sentencing has the meaning of giving different sentences to convicts in cases that are similar or almost similar in terms of the level of crime, whether they are carried out simultaneously or not, without justifiable reasons. This research aims to identify and analyze the basic considerations of judges in determining sentences against drug offenders, as well as identifying the factors that influence judges' decisions against perpetrators, especially those who violate Article 112 and Article 114 Paragraph 1 of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. The data used in this research is secondary data in the form of judge's decisions. The analytical approach used is the case approach and criminal law concepts. The research results show that the judge considered the evidence presented in accordance with the procedures regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code in deciding the case. Factors that influence the judge's decision include legal aspects, characteristics of the perpetrator, and subjective factors of the judge concerned.
Wulandari et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: