Disparity in Sentencing in Premeditated Murder Crimes to Provide Justice in Indonesia

Cornelius Dikae Zolohefona Gulo, Fahrurrozi Fahrurrozi, Faradistia Nur Aviva, Anantya Aliyya Arkanbariq

Abstract


Sentencing disparity is the imposition of different punishments for similar criminal acts without justification. Disparity of punishment is also found in several judges' decisions regarding premeditated murder, for example, Cassation Decision No. 1727 K/PID/2009 and Cassation Decision No. 922 K/Pid/2018. The two verdicts, in principle, addressed the case of premeditated murder; however, they rendered disparate and quite lame sentences for each defendant. This study aims to examine the punishments associated with criminal offenses and the factors causing the disparities in sentencing for premeditated murder in Indonesia. This study constitutes doctrinal legal research that examines secondary data, specifically judicial verdicts and legal statutes about premeditated murder. This study revealed that criminal sanctions were initially designed to inflict suffering on perpetrators who committed crimes. Ultimately, the objective of the sanctions evolved into a mechanism for educating perpetrators to prevent the recurrence of their actions. This study identified factors that cause disparities in sentencing for premeditated murder in Indonesia, precisely the defendant's type of culpability, motives and intentions behind the crime, intrinsic characteristics of the defendant, how the defendant executed the criminal act, and the potential impact of the sentence on the defendant's future. These factors can become sentencing guidelines that can serve as a guide and control for judges in formulating and imposing sentencing verdicts so that the sentencing can provide justice for all parties, both for victims, defendants, and the wider community.


Keywords


Concept of punishment; Disparity of punishment; Premeditated murder

Full Text:

PDF

References


E. Endri, S. Suryadi, and P. R. Sucipta, “Proporsionalitas Putusan Hakim Berdasarkan Ide Keseimbangan,” J. Selat, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 199–222, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.31629/selat.v7i2.2391.

J. . Van Bemmelen, Hukum Pidana 1 : Hukum Penitentier. Jakarta: Binacipta, 1984.

N. Gulo, “Disparitas dalam Penjatuhan Pidana,” Masal. Huk., vol. 47, no. 3, p. 215, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.14710/mmh.47.3.2018.215-227.

H. C. Black, Black’s Law Dictionary. Minnesota: West Publishing Co., 1968.

Muladi and B. N. Arief, Teori-teori dan Kebijakan Pidana. Bandung: Alumni, 2010.

M. Nurasiah, B. Harefa, and R. P. R. Waruwu, “Disparitas Pidana Terhadap Justice Collaborator Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi,” J. Esensi Huk., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 88–98, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.35586/esh.v4i1.155.

H. Eryke, “Faktor Penyebab Terjadinya Diparias Pidana terhadap Penyalahguna Narkotika di Pengadilan Negeri Bengkulu,” Univ. Bengkulu Law J., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 16–33, 2022.

V. S. Yuliati and Yanto, “Disparitas Putusan Hakim pada Tindak Pidana Asusila dengan Anak sebagai Korbannya di Pengadilan Negeri Sleman,” Kaji. Has. Penelit. Huk., vol. 1, no. 2, 2017.

K. Benuf and M. Azhar, “Metodologi Penelitian Hukum sebagai Instrumen Mengurai Permasalahan Hukum Kontemporer,” Gema Keadilan, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 20–33, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.14710/gk.2020.7504.

M. N. Adlini, A. H. Dinda, S. Yulinda, O. Chotimah, and S. J. Merliyana, “Metode Penelitian Kualitatif Studi Pustaka,” Edumaspul J. Pendidik., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 974–980, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.33487/edumaspul.v6i1.3394.

M. S. W. Sumardjono, Bahan Kuliah Metodologi Penelitian Ilmu Hukum. Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah Mada, 2019.

E. S. Baehaqi, “Keturutsertaan Dalam Tindak Pidana,” An-Nahdliyyah J. Stud. Keislam., vol. 1, no. 1, 2022.

D. Andini and D. Sintara, “Tinjauan Yuridis Penerapan Hukum Pidana terhadap Tindakan Main Hakim Sendiri (Studi Kasus pada Polres Serdang Bedagai),” J. Huk. Bisnis, vol. 12, no. 04, pp. 159–165, 2023.

A. S. J. Mandagie, “Proses Hukum Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan yang Dilakukan oleh Anak Dibawah Umur Ditinjau dari Undang-Undang Nomor 11 Tahun 2012 tentang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak,” Lex Crim., vol. 9, no. 2, 2020.

Moeljatno, Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2008.

E. Y. Kanter and S. R. Sianturi, Asas-asas hukum pidana di Indonesia dan penerapannya. Jakarta: Storia Grafika, 2002.

Sudarto, Hukum Pidana 1. Jakarta: Yayasan Soedarto, 2018.

E. O. S. Hiariej, Prinsip-prinsip hukum pidana / Eddy O.S. Hiariej. Yogyakarta: Cahaya Atma Pustaka, 2017.

N. A. Rahmawati, “Hukum Pidana Indonesia: Ultimatum Remedium atau Primum Remedium,” Recidiv. J. Huk. Pidana dan Penanggulangan Kejahatan, vol. 2, no. 1, 2013.

W. Cragg, The Practice of Punishment: Towards a Theory of Restorative Justice. Routledge, 1992.

A. Syatar, “Relevansi Antara Pemidanaan Indonesia Dan Sanksi Pidana Islam,” DIKTUM J. Syariah dan Huk., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 118–134, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.35905/diktum.v16i1.525.

M. R. Gardner and R. G. Singer, Crimes and Punishment: Cases, Materials, and Readings in Criminal Law. New York: LexisNexis, 2006.

D. O. Ariyanti and M. Ramadhan, “Pedoman Pemidanaan Dalam Konteks Pembaharuan Hukum Pidana Indonesia Dimasa Mendatang,” Kaji. Huk., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 92–102, May 2022, doi: 10.37159/kh.v7i1.7.

W. Young and A. King, “The Origins and Evolution of Sentencing Guidelines,” in Sentencing Guidelines, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 202–217. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684571.003.0013.

J. T. Siska and Tantimin, “Analisis Hukum terhadap Kelalaian dalam Pemasangan Arus Listrik yang Menyebabkan Hilangnya Nyawa Orang Lain di Indonesia,” J. Komun. Huk., vol. 7, no. 2, 2021.

N. Mahyudin, “Pertanggung Jawaban Pidana Masing-Masing Peserta dalam Pembunuhan Berencana Karena Perintah Jabatan,” Lex Priv., vol. 12, no. 3, 2023.

W. Prodjodikoro, Asas-asas hukum pidana di Indonesia. Bandung: Refika Aditama, 2011.

E. Sengi, “Konsep Culpa dalam Perkara Pidana Suatu Analisis Perbandingan Putusan Nomor 18/Pid.B/2017/PN.TOBELO,” Era Huk. J. Ilm. Ilmu Huk., vol. 17, no. 2, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.24912/erahukum.v17i2.5993.

A. H. Henok, “Konstruksi Motif dalam Pembuktian Perkara Pidana,” Honeste Vivere, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 113–129, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.55809/hv.v33i2.242.

D. Rahmawati, I. K. Siregig, and Zainudin, “Pertimbangan Hakim dalam Menjatuhkan Pidana terhadap Pelaku Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan Berencana,” Widya Yuridika J. Huk., vol. 4, no. 1, Jul. 2021, [Online]. Available: https://www.ejournal.warmadewa.ac.id/index.php/juprehum/article/view/2009

D. Hananta, “Pertimbangan Keadaan-Keadaan Meringankan Dan Memberatkan Dalam Penjatuhan Pidana / Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances Consideration on Sentencing,” J. Huk. dan Peradil., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 87, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.25216/jhp.7.1.2018.87-108.

O. S. Gunadi, Penologi dan pemasyarakatan. Sleman: Deepublish, 2020.

Mudzakkir and Tim Kerja Departement Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia, Perencanaan Pembangunan Hukum Nasional Bidang Hukum Pidana dan Sistem Pemidanaan (Politik Hukum dan Pemindanaan). Jakarta: Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional, 2008.

N. D. Irmawanti and B. N. Arief, “Urgensi Tujuan Dan Pedoman Pemidanaan Dalam Rangka Pembaharuan Sistem Pemidanaan Hukum Pidana,” J. Pembang. Huk. Indones., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 217–227, May 2021, doi: 10.14710/jphi.v3i2.217-227.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.18196/jphk.v5i2.21629

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Editorial Office:
Master of Law, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

Second Floor of Postgraduate Building
Jl. Brawijaya, Tamantiro, Kasihan, Bantul, D.I. Yogyakarta, Indonesia 55183
Phone: 08224531887
Fax: (0274) 387646
Email: jphk@umy.ac.id