ANALISIS YURIDIS DISPARITAS PUTUSAN PIDANA NARKOTIKA PADA JUDEX JURIST DAN JUDEX FACTIE (Studi Putusan Nomor 179/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Trg., Nomor 207/Pid.Sus/2020/PNTrg dan 389/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Trg )
Abstract
Disparity in criminal decisions is the imposition of different criminal sanctions at each stage of legal action, both Judex Factie and Judex Jurist, so the aim of this research is to find out the judge's considerations in imposing a crime in each decision and to find out the causes of disparities in the decisions of Judex Factie judges and judges. Judex Jurist. This research method is juridical-normative with a statutory regulation approach and a case approach. The data collection technique is by analyzing laws and judge's decisions related to this research. The results of this research show that the judge's considerations in the Judex Factie decision were based on: a. Fulfillment of the elements of intentionally or without any legal right to offer for sale, selling, purchasing, receiving, being an intermediary in buying and selling, exchanging or handing over Category I Narcotics. In the Judex Juris judge's decision, it was based on the fulfillment of the more subsidiary elements of the indictment, namely each drug abuser and himself. And the cause of the disparity in the Judex Facti and Judex Juris decisions is caused by the judge himself because of the existence of freedom and independence of the judge as well as from the law itself, namely the absence of guidelines in sentencing so that the Judex Factie and Judex Jurist decisions are different, namely in Judex Jurist with a lighter decision
Downloads
References
Sudikno Mertokusumo, 2007, Mengenal Hukum Suatu Pengantar, Yogyakarta: Liberty.
Muhammad Bakri, 2013, Pengantah Hukum Indonesia (Sistem Hukum Indonesia Pada Era Reformasi), Malang: Ub Press.
Hamidah Abdurrachman, dkk, 2020, Palu Hakim Versus Rasa Keadilan Sebuah Pengantar Disparitas Putusan Hakim Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi, Yogyakarta: Deepublish
Prof.Dr. I Gde Pantja Astawa, Memahami Ilmu Negara & Teori Negara, Refika Aditama, Bandung.
Muladi Dan Barda Nawawi Arief, 2010, Teori-Teori Dan Kebijakan Pidana, Bandung: Alumni.
Andi Hamzah, 2013, Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia, Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Tim Penyusun Visimedia, Rehabilitasi Bagi Korban Narkoba, Tangerang: Penerbit Visimedia, 2006
David Fogel dalam Teguh Prasetyo, Kriminalisasi Dalam Hukum Pidana, Bandung, 2010.
Binsar Gultom, 2006, Pandangan Seorang Hakim, Penegakan Hukum di Indonesia, Medan: Pustaka Bangsa Press
Heru Sugiyono,Robinsar marbun,2019,Jakarta,DISPARITAS KEPUTUSAN HAKIM DALAM SENGKETA SIPIL,vol.20. edisi 5.
JURNAL
Defry dwi irmawan dan anis mashdurohatun, 2018, Disparitas Perkara Pidana Terhadap Putusan Hakim Dalam Tindak Pidana Penyalahgunaan Narkoti ka Dilihat Dari Tujuan Hukum Pidana. Jurnal daulat hukum, vol.974R.
TESIS
Devy Iryanthy Hasibuan Syafruddin Kalo, dkk, 2014, Disparitas Pemidanaan Terhadap Pelaku Tindak Pidana Narkotika, Tesis, Medan: Universitas Sumatera Utara.
Ade Kurniawan Muharram, 2017, Analisis Disparitas Putusan Hakim Dalam Perkara Kecelakaan Lalu Lintas (Studi Putusan Nomor : No.110/Pid.B/2015/PN.Met dan Nomor : No.32/Pid.B/2013/PN.M), Fakultas Hukum Universitas Lampung
PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN
Undang-Undang Dasar Negara 1945
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana
Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 Tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman
Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2009 Tentang Nakotika
Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2010 Tentang Penempatan Penyalahgunaan, Korban Penyalahgunaan, dan Pecandu Narkotika ke Dalam Lembaga Rehabilitasi Medis dan Rehabilitasi Sosial
Surat Edaran Mahkamh Agung Nomor 1 tahun 2017 tentang Pemberlakuan Rumusan Hasil Rapat Pleno Kamar Mahkamah Agung Tahun 2017 Sebagai pedoman Pelaksanaan Tugas Bagi Pengadilan.
Abstract views: 39 , 
PDF (Bahasa Indonesia) downloads: 30
