ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP PUTUSAN HAKIM DALAM MENJATUHKAN PIDANA PENJARA DI BAWAH ANCAMAN PIDANA MINIMUM KHUSUS DALAM PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA NARKOTIKA

Abstract

Indonesia is a country with many criminal laws, one of the criminal acts it regulates is narcotics crimes, narcotics crimes are regulated by Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics which is an amendment to Law Number 22 of 1997 concerning Narcotics. The problem in this study is whether the judge's decision in imposing a prison sentence under a special minimum sentence is in accordance with the legal objectives in narcotics crime cases and whether the imposition of a prison sentence under a special minimum sentence is contrary to the law on narcotics crimes. The method used by the author in this study is Normative Juridical Method. In this research, the analysis is descriptive in nature and its legal basis refers to the Narcotics Crime Act and the Criminal Code. Based on the results of the research and discussion, it is concluded that in Decision Number 121/Pid.sus/2018/Pn.Mgg which imposes imprisonment under the Special Minimum Threat is in accordance with the objectives of the law According to Gustav Radbruch where among the legal objectives are Justice, Certainty, and Benefits. In Decision Number 121/Pid.sus/2018/Pn.Mgg the Judge prioritized justice for the Defendant to give a sentence according to the weight and degree of guilt so that the Judge's Decision could be in line with the Purpose of the Law. In this decision a judge thinks about how to achieve justice for the defendant, but the judge's decision overrides the certainty and benefits of law. However, if using Hans Kelsen's theory, the imposition is certainly not in accordance with the applicable legal regulations, the judge should have imposed a prison sentence in accordance with Article 112 paragraph (1) seeing the provisions of Article 112 paragraph (1) "a minimum sentence of 4 years and a maximum of 12 years with fines starting 800 million to 8 billion