Important Questions in Narcotics Consideration

Oct 13, 2025 by magicalceylontours.com 9 views

The Disparity of Punishment Against the Perpetrators of Drug Criminal Acts: A Critical Analysis

Introduction

The criminal justice system in Indonesia has been plagued by a striking disparity in the punishment of perpetrators of drug criminal acts. Despite the existence of a comprehensive law, such as Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics, the practice of criminalization often shows a significant variation in the court's decision. This disparity not only undermines the principles of justice but also raises serious questions regarding the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in Indonesia. In this article, we will delve into the key questions surrounding the punishment of perpetrators of drug criminal acts, the factors that contribute to this disparity, and the potential solutions to minimize its occurrence.

Important Questions in Narcotics Consideration

The punishment of perpetrators of drug criminal acts is a complex issue that requires a thorough understanding of the underlying laws and regulations. The following questions are crucial in addressing this issue:

How is the punishment of the perpetrators of drug criminal acts based on Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics in a court decision?

The answer to this question lies in the interpretation of the law by the judges. Law Number 35 of 2009 provides a broad space between the minimum and maximum criminal threats, which creates the potential for disparity in the court's decision. The judges' interpretation of the law, combined with their individual perspectives and experiences, can lead to varying outcomes in similar cases.

What are the factors that cause criminal disparity in drug criminal cases handed down by the judge?

Several factors contribute to the disparity in punishment, including:

The functioning of the criminal justice system (SPP) elements is well.
The difference between criminal philosophy adopted by each judge.
The absence of clear criminal guidelines for judges.
The emergence of judges' independence factors that sometimes lead to subjective decisions.
Uncontrolled judge discretion is also the cause of disparity in criminal offenses.

How to minimize the occurrence of criminal disparities in drug criminal cases?

To minimize the occurrence of criminal disparities, several steps can be taken, including:

Increasing judge perception: Judges need to have a uniform perception regarding criminalization, by adopting the same criminal philosophy, such as the criminal utilitarian which focuses on the interests of the community.
Functional Functional Differentiation Principle: Law Enforcement Officials need to implement a criminal justice system based on the principle of functional differentiation in accordance with the authority stipulated by the law.
Immediately make a criminal guideline: Indonesia must immediately make a comprehensive criminal guideline so that the sentence of punishment becomes clearer and more measurable, thereby reducing uncertainty in the verdict.

Research Methods

This study uses a normative juridical method with an analytical descriptive approach. This research refers to the theory, doctrine, norm, and principle of criminalization, as well as the rules of law that apply both in the laws and regulations and court decisions. In this way, the facts related to criminalization can be described and analyzed comprehensively.

Research Findings

Based on research, several things were found that caused the disparity in punishment:

Potential of disparities in the Law:

Law Number 35 Year 2009 provides a broad space between the minimum and maximum criminal threats, thus creating the potential for disparity in the court's decision.

Factors causing disparity:

The functioning of the criminal justice system (SPP) elements is well.
The difference between criminal philosophy adopted by each judge.
The absence of clear criminal guidelines for judges.
The emergence of judges' independence factors that sometimes lead to subjective decisions.
Uncontrolled judge discretion is also the cause of disparity in criminal offenses.

3 This guideline will assist judges in imposing more consistent sentences.

Recommendation

To create a more just and transparent justice system, there are several steps that can be taken:

Increased judge perception:

Judges need to have a uniform perception regarding criminalization, by adopting the same criminal philosophy, such as the criminal utilitarian which focuses on the interests of the community.

Functional Functional Differentiation Principle:

Law Enforcement Officials need to implement a criminal justice system based on the principle of functional differentiation in accordance with the authority stipulated by the law.

Immediately make a criminal guideline:

Indonesia must immediately make a comprehensive criminal guideline so that the sentence of punishment becomes clearer and more measurable, thereby reducing uncertainty in the verdict.

Through the steps above, it is expected that disparities in the criminal criminal actors can be minimized, so as to create more equitable justice for all citizens.

Conclusion

The disparity in punishment against the perpetrators of drug criminal acts is a complex issue that requires a comprehensive understanding of the underlying laws and regulations. By identifying the factors that contribute to this disparity and implementing measures to minimize its occurrence, we can create a more just and transparent justice system in Indonesia. The recommendations outlined in this article provide a starting point for addressing this issue and promoting a more equitable justice system for all citizens.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About the Disparity of Punishment Against the Perpetrators of Drug Criminal Acts

Q: What is the main cause of the disparity in punishment against the perpetrators of drug criminal acts?

A: The main cause of the disparity in punishment is the broad space between the minimum and maximum criminal threats provided by Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. This creates the potential for disparity in the court's decision.

Q: What are the factors that contribute to the disparity in punishment?

A: Several factors contribute to the disparity in punishment, including:

The functioning of the criminal justice system (SPP) elements is well.
The difference between criminal philosophy adopted by each judge.
The absence of clear criminal guidelines for judges.
The emergence of judges' independence factors that sometimes lead to subjective decisions.
Uncontrolled judge discretion is also the cause of disparity in criminal offenses.

Q: How can the disparity in punishment be minimized?

A: To minimize the disparity in punishment, several steps can be taken, including:

Increasing judge perception: Judges need to have a uniform perception regarding criminalization, by adopting the same criminal philosophy, such as the criminal utilitarian which focuses on the interests of the community.
Functional Functional Differentiation Principle: Law Enforcement Officials need to implement a criminal justice system based on the principle of functional differentiation in accordance with the authority stipulated by the law.
Immediately make a criminal guideline: Indonesia must immediately make a comprehensive criminal guideline so that the sentence of punishment becomes clearer and more measurable, thereby reducing uncertainty in the verdict.

Q: What is the role of judges in minimizing the disparity in punishment?

A: Judges play a crucial role in minimizing the disparity in punishment. They need to have a uniform perception regarding criminalization, by adopting the same criminal philosophy, such as the criminal utilitarian which focuses on the interests of the community. Judges should also be guided by clear criminal guidelines to ensure consistency in their decisions.

Q: How can the public contribute to minimizing the disparity in punishment?

A: The public can contribute to minimizing the disparity in punishment by:

Raising awareness about the issue of disparity in punishment.
Supporting efforts to reform the criminal justice system.
Encouraging judges to adopt a uniform perception regarding criminalization.
Demanding that the government make a comprehensive criminal guideline.

Q: What are the consequences of the disparity in punishment?

A: The disparity in punishment can have serious consequences, including:

Injustice for perpetrators and victims.
Erosion of public trust in the criminal justice system.
Inefficient use of resources.
Increased crime rates.

Q: How can the disparity in punishment be addressed in the long term?

A: To address the disparity in punishment in the long term, several steps can be taken, including:

Reforming the criminal justice system to ensure consistency and fairness.
Implementing a comprehensive criminal guideline.
Providing training and education for judges and law enforcement officials.
Encouraging public participation and engagement in the criminal justice system.

Q: What is the future of the criminal justice system in Indonesia?

A: The future of the criminal justice system in Indonesia depends on the efforts of all stakeholders, including the government, judges, law enforcement officials, and the public. By working together to address the issue of disparity in punishment, we can create a more just and transparent justice system that serves the interests of all citizens.