TINDAK PIDANA PENYALAHGUNAAN NARKOTIKA (STUDI KOMPARATIF PUTUSAN NOMOR 76/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG, PUTUSAN NOMOR 69/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG, PUTUSAN NOMOR 41/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG, DAN PUTUSAN NOMOR 38/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG)

Khafidhoh, NIM.: 17103040140 (2024) TINDAK PIDANA PENYALAHGUNAAN NARKOTIKA (STUDI KOMPARATIF PUTUSAN NOMOR 76/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG, PUTUSAN NOMOR 69/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG, PUTUSAN NOMOR 41/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG, DAN PUTUSAN NOMOR 38/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG). Skripsi thesis, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA.

Preview	Text (TINDAK PIDANA PENYALAHGUNAAN NARKOTIKA (STUDI KOMPARATIF PUTUSAN NOMOR 76/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG, PUTUSAN NOMOR 69/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG, PUTUSAN NOMOR 41/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG, DAN PUTUSAN NOMOR 38/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG)) 17103040140_BAB-I_IV-atau-V_DAFTAR-PUSTAKA.pdf - Published Version Download (3MB) | Preview
	Text (TINDAK PIDANA PENYALAHGUNAAN NARKOTIKA (STUDI KOMPARATIF PUTUSAN NOMOR 76/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG, PUTUSAN NOMOR 69/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG, PUTUSAN NOMOR 41/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG, DAN PUTUSAN NOMOR 38/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG)) 17103040140_BAB-II_sampai_SEBELUM-BAB-TERAKHIR.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (3MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Narcotics abuse, as a form of special criminal offense, has become a major problem that continues to grow along with the wider illicit trafficking. International organizations such as UNODC and the National Narcotics Agency (BNN) continue to monitor the development of narcotics cases in the world, including in Indonesia. Through a case study on four court decisions related to criminal acts of narcotics abuse at the Magelang District Court, the author examines how the comparison of the decisions of the judges of the Magelang District Court in Decisions (Number 76/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG, Number 69/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG, Number 41/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG, and Number 38/PID.SUS/2020/PN MGG) and how the judicial review in the four decisions. Is it in accordance with the applicable law and has provided legal certainty. This research uses a descriptive method of analysis with a normative juridical approach, which means examining legal theories, concepts, legal principles, and relevant legislation. The data used in this research comes from documentation of court decisions and analysis of Law No. 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. As well as conducting interviews with judges related to the Mageang District Court. The author also refers to the theory that the author uses, namely the Theory of Judicial Power and the Theory of Comparability. The results of this study show that there are similarities and differences in the application of punishment. Similarities include the same type of case, namely drug abuse for personal consumption without involvement in drug trafficking, as well as the application of Article 127 paragraph (1) letter (a) of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics by the judge, even though the initial indictment was an alternative Article 112 paragraph (1) or Article 127 paragraph (1) letter (a). The main difference lies in the length of the imprisonment sanction, with Decision Number 76/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Mgg imposing a sentence of 1 year and 10 months, which is heavier than the other three decisions which each imposed a sentence of 1 year and 6 months. This difference is caused by factors such as the length of drug consumption. The juridical review reveals that the four decisions apply the principle of judge discretion based on the facts of the trial, the type of article applied, as well as mitigating or aggravating factors

Share this knowledge with your friends :

Actions (login required)

View Item