DISPARITAS DALAM PENJATUHAN HUKUM PIDANA TERHADAP TERDAKWA DI INDONESIA

Abstract

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini dilaksanakan guna mengkaji latar belakang terjadinya disparitas hukum atau perbedaan hukuman yang diberikan kepada terdakwa terhadap tindak pidana yang sejenis atau sama. Tujuan lainnya yakni mengkaji faktor yang berperan besar yang mempengaruhi putusan hakim dalam proses peradilan. Melelui Studi ini diharapkan dapat memberikan pemahaman pada pembaca perihal disparitas pada proses pemidanaan agar tidak timbul sebuah miskonsepsi yang berujung pada stigma negatif masyarakat terhadap proses peradilan di Indonesia karena adanya perbedaan hukuman yang diterima oleh terdakwa atas pidana yang sama. Penulis menggunakan beberapa metode penelitian sebagai sebuah pedoman serta pisau analisis. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini meliputi: pendekatan perundang-undangan (statue approach) melalui ketentuan hukum yakni KUHAP, pendekatan konseptual (conseptual approach) konsep hukum yang difokuskan pada penelitian ini yakni konsep “Pemidanaan serta Disparitas”, pendekatan kasus (case approach), serta pendekatan komparatif atau pendekatan perbandingan (comparative approach). Penelitian ini berfisat analisis kualitatif serta menggunakan beberapa sumber hukum yaknis primer yang berasal dari undang-undang, sekunder yang bersumber dari bahan hukum seperti buku dan jurnal serta terakhir tersier yang bersumber dari kamus seperti KBBI serta black law dictionary. Hasil dari penelitian ini yakni menjabarkan bahwa putusan hakim dipengaruhi oleh beberapa hal seperti: a. keputusan perihal perkara; b. keputusan perihal hukuman terhadap terdakwa; c. keputusan perihal pidananya. Penjatuhan pidana oleh hakim terhadap terdakwa didasarkan atas pertimbangan yang meliputi: a. pertimbangan yuridis; b. fakta persidangan; serta c. pertimbangan sosiologis. Hasil lainnya yakni disparitas dalam pemidanaan dipengaruhi oleh faktor subjektif serta objektif dengan beberapa faktor lainnya yakni a. Saksi; b. Jaksa Penuntut Umum; c. Pengacara/ Kuasa Hukum; d. Hakim; e. Terdakwa; f. Opini publik; g. Budaya (legal culture).

Kata Kunci: Pemidanaan, Disparitas, Putusan Hakim

ABSTRACT

The reason of investigate with this title is to look at the foundation of the event of lawful incongruities or contrasts within the sentences given to litigants for comparative or the same wrongdoings. Another objective is to look at the components that play a major part in influencing the judge's choice within the legal handle. This think about moreover points to supply perusers with an understanding of incongruities within the sentencing prepare so that a misconception does not emerge which comes about in negative disgrace from society towards the legal handle in Indonesia due to diverse sentences gotten by litigants for the same wrongdoing. The creator employments a few inquire about strategies as a rule as well as an expository cut. The inquire about strategies utilized in this think about incorporate: statutory approach through legal arrangements, to be specific the Criminal Method Code, the conceptual approach to the concept of law that's centered on in this think about, specifically the concept of "Criminalism and Abberations", the case approach.  as well as a comparative approach (comparative approach). This inquire about is based on subjective examination and employments a few lawful sources, specifically essential which comes from lawful items, auxiliary which comes from lawful materials such as books and diaries and at last tertiary which starts from lexicons such as KBBI and Black Law Dictionary. The comes about of this study describe that the judge's choice is affected by a few things, such as: a. choices with respect to cases; b. choice with respect to the discipline of the charged; c. choice with respect to the penalty. The sentence forced by the judge against the litigant is based on contemplations which include: a. juridical contemplations; b. trial realities; and c. sociological contemplations. Another result is that abberations in sentencing are impacted by subjective and objective components with a few other components, to be specific a. Witness; b. Open Prosecutor; c. Attorneys/ Lawyers; d. Judge; e. Litigant; f. Open supposition; g. Culture (legitimate culture).

Catchphrases: Sentence, Dissimilarity, Judge's Choice