Publication Search

54,413 articles from 425 journals · 1,457 citations tracked

Showing 1-2 of 2

Analytics

Suci Nabila Mustapa; Fence M. Wantu; Julisa Aprilia Kaluku

Kajian ilmu Hukum, Sosial dan Administrasi Negara 2024 Lembaga Pengembangan Kinerja Dosen

The criminal disparity is inconsistent of different decisions toward crime with similar characteristics where its danger is comporable without obvious justification. Narcotics are substances or drugs from plants or others, wheter synthetic or semi synthetic, that can fatally affect the consciousness and lead to an addiction. This study aimed to analyze the factors influencing the disparity in judges decisions and the solutions or judges consideration in sentencing toward drug abuse cases. This normative research used a case approach referencing primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Data collection techniques were carried out using literature studies. Based on the analysis, two factors influenced the judges decision legal and social. Besides, the verdict made by the judge has not fulfilled the sense of justice due to the irrelevancy.

Anatasya Awalia S. Hasan; Fence M. Wantu; Julisa Aprilia Kaluku

Jurnal Hukum, Politik dan Humaniora 2024 Lembaga Pengembangan Kinerja Dosen

Criminal disparity refers to dissenting judgments regarding the same criminal act or one that possesses dangerous characteristics, both of which can be compared without clear justification. This research aims to understand and analyze whether the existence of disparities in prosecution can fulfill the legal perspectives’s objectives and to identify and analyze the factors causing disparities in prosecution in Cases Number: 176/Pid.B/2019/PN Gto and Cases Number: 163/Pid.B/2019/PN Gto by using a normative research method with a case approach. The technique employed involves a literature review supported by descriptive analysis a supplementary method. The research findings are as follows: firstly, in both verdicts, Number 176/Pid.B/2019.PN Gto and Number 163/Pid.B/2019/PN Gto, it is observed that they still do not fully meet the legal perspective’s objectives because there are legal objectives that remain unfulfilled. Secondly, both verdicts contain factors influencing the occurrence of disparities in prosecution, including the consequences caused, considerations from the prepator’s prespective, personal factors, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the extent of the losses incurred.