Criminal Appointment Under Special Minimum Threat in a Narcotics Case

DOI

10.2991/978-2-38476-074-9_32How to use a DOI?

Keywords

Criminal Imposition; Under the Special Minimum; Narcotics

Abstract

Judges in imposing sentencing decisions may not impose criminal decisions beyond the maximum criminal threat or under the minimum criminal threat, the Law on Narcotics as a lex specialis is of course made for a specific purpose. There is a weighting of criminal sanctions, both in the form of a special minimum and maximum special punishment. However, the concept of legal discovery used must also be applicable to the subject of discussion. Of course, the judges have the same problem regarding the conflict between the principle of legal certainty and the principle of justice in imposing a criminal under a special minimum. The approach method used in this research is normative juridical. The specification of this research is descriptive analytical. The data source used is secondary data. Secondary data is data obtained from library research consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials. Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded: (1) Criminal sanctions in Law no. 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics, it is known that there are minimum and maximum sanctions which are in Article 111 to Article 148 of Law no. 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. Then the weighting of penalties in Law no. 35 of 2009 can also be seen from its nature, which is cumulative, meaning that if a person is proven to have committed a narcotic crime, he will be subject to imprisonment and a fine. (2) The Panel of Judges on the Narcotics case with register number 174/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Bkl can be seen that the Panel of Judges decides based on the theory of evidence and the theory of punishment. The judge decides according to the indictment but may deviate from the special minimum criminal provisions by making sufficient considerations. The judge imposes a sentence below the special minimum that has been determined by the Narcotics Law in principle, because the judge’s main achievement is the value of justice. (3) When the judge is faced with a conflict between the principles of legal certainty and justice, the judge must be able to make a shift. This shift is intended not to highlight one of the principles, whether it is certainty or justice, but to create a balance between both.

Copyright

© 2023 The Author(s)

Open Access

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

Download article (PDF)

TY  - CONF
AU  - Iman Wijaya
PY  - 2023
DA  - 2023/06/27
TI  - Criminal Appointment Under Special Minimum Threat in a Narcotics Case
BT  - Proceedings of the 5th Legal International Conference and Studies (LICS 2022)
PB  - Atlantis Press
SP  - 272
EP  - 279
SN  - 2352-5398
UR  - https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-074-9_32
DO  - 10.2991/978-2-38476-074-9_32
ID  - Wijaya2023
ER  -