Sentencing Disparity in Human Trafficking Cases: An Analysis of Judicial Decisions Toward Proportional Law Enforcement

Abstract

Trafficking in Persons (TIP) is an extraordinary crime that strips away the very foundations of human freedom and dignity. In efforts to enforce the law against this crime, the judiciary plays a central role as the final bastion for those seeking justice. However, the reality of judicial practice in Indonesia demonstrates a striking phenomenon of sentencing disparity among judges in TIP cases with similar characteristics. Such disparities not only undermine the principles of legal certainty and equality before the law but also weaken the deterrent function of punishment against trafficking syndicates and neglect victims' rights to recovery. The broad range between minimum and maximum penalties provided under Law Number 21 of 2007 on the Eradication of Trafficking in Persons, coupled with the absence of standardized sentencing guidelines, grants judges excessively broad discretion, causing decisions to depend heavily on individual subjectivity, background, and judicial philosophy. This study aims to identify the root causes of sentencing disparities in TIP cases, analyze their impact on public perceptions of justice and victims' rights, and formulate a framework for proportional law enforcement. Using normative legal research through statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, this study argues that the current sentencing paradigm remains overly focused on formalistic retributive justice. As a solution, this research proposes a proportional law enforcement model integrating the principles of Dignified Justice and restorative justice. This formulation requires the Supreme Court to establish specialized Sentencing Guidelines for TIP cases adopting a weighted sentencing matrix. The guidelines should regulate not only imprisonment but also mandatory asset recovery and maximum restitution for victims to ensure meaningful recovery. Drawing upon comparative practices in jurisdictions such as Germany and the Netherlands, where sentencing guidelines have been standardized, this reconstruction seeks to create a judicial system that is consistent, authoritative, and respectful of human dignity.