Legal Analysis of the Imposition of Decisions Under the Minimum Criminal Threat by Judges in Enforcing the Law on Narcotics Crimes

Abstract

The final stage in the process of law enforcement against narcotics crimes is the imposition of a Judge's decision, but in practice, Judges often impose decisions below the minimum criminal threat. Judges' decisions that impose sentences below the minimum threat can raise questions about the legal considerations used by the Judge, and have the potential to create legal uncertainty. Based on the background above, the author formulates several problems, namely: the practice of sentencing under the minimum criminal threat by Judges in enforcing Indonesian narcotics crime law, and the implications of sending sentencing under the minimum criminal threat by Judges in enforcing Indonesian narcotics crime law. This study uses a sociological legal approach method, with analytical descriptive research specifications. The data used in this study are primary data and secondary data obtained through interviews and literature studies, then analyzed qualitatively using law enforcement theory, Pancasila justice theory, the theory of the purpose of punishment, and the theory of legal certainty. The results of this study are: (1) the practice of imposing sentences below the minimum penalty by Judges in enforcing Indonesian narcotics crime law reflects the complexity and dynamics between legal certainty and justice. The phenomenon where Judges impose sentences below the minimum penalty can create disparities in law enforcement. This has the potential to damage public trust in the justice system, because the public will feel that the law is not being applied fairly and consistently.