SENTENCING DISPARITY IN CORRUPTION CASES IN JAMBI CITY: AN ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL REASONING
Keywords:
Corruption, Judicial discretion, Judicial reasoning, Proportionality, Sentencing disparityAbstract
Differences in corruption sentences raise questions about equality, proportionality, and the exercise of judicial discretion. However, unequal sentences do not necessarily demonstrate unjustified disparity because legally relevant differences between cases may warrant different outcomes. This article examines the normative framework for evaluating sentencing disparity and judicial reasoning in corruption proceedings within the institutional setting of Jambi City. It employs normative legal research through statutory and conceptual approaches, supported by scholarship available through 2023. Particular attention is given to Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020, whose sentencing guidelines concern Articles 2 and 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law. The analysis identifies offence classification, financial harm, individual culpability, participation, benefits, and aggravating or mitigating circumstances as essential considerations in a legally meaningful comparison. It argues that the quality of judicial explanation is central to distinguishing justified differentiation from inconsistent punishment. The article proposes a comparative framework that separates imprisonment, fines, and additional penalties while accounting for procedural differences. Its contribution is a normative method for examining Jambi City cases without presuming an empirically established local disparity. Consistency requires comparable cases, accurate factual findings, and transparent reasons connecting sentencing factors with the punishment imposed.
Downloads
References
Hadi, D. F., & Nova, E. (2023). Penerapan PERMA Nomor 1 Tahun 2020 dalam perkara tindak pidana korupsi: Studi kasus Putusan Nomor 33/Pid.Sus/TPK/2020/PN.Pdg. Delicti: Jurnal Hukum Pidana dan Kriminologi, 1(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.25077/delicti.v.1.i.2.p.1-14.2023
Hambali, A. R., Ramadani, R., & Djanggih, H. (2021). Politik hukum PERMA Nomor 1 Tahun 2020 dalam mewujudkan keadilan dan kepastian hukum terhadap pemidanaan pelaku korupsi. Jurnal Wawasan Yuridika, 5(2), 200–223. https://doi.org/10.25072/jwy.v5i2.511
Irmawanti, N. D., & Arief, B. N. (2021). Urgensi tujuan dan pedoman pemidanaan dalam rangka pembaharuan sistem pemidanaan hukum pidana. Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia, 3(2), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v3i2.217-227
Manihuruk, T. N. S., Daeng, Y., & Johar, O. A. (2022). Penerapan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1 Tahun 2020 tentang pedoman pemidanaan Pasal 2 dan Pasal 3 Undang-Undang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi di Pengadilan Negeri Pekanbaru. Jurnal Ilmiah Penegakan Hukum, 9(2), 162–169. https://doi.org/10.31289/jiph.v9i2.7568
Republic of Indonesia. (1981). Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang Hukum Acara Pidana. Official legal database.
Republic of Indonesia. (1999). Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Official legal database.
Republic of Indonesia. (2001). Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Official legal database.
Republic of Indonesia. (2009). Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman. Official legal text.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. (2014). Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 5 Tahun 2014 tentang Pidana Tambahan Uang Pengganti dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Official legal document.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. (2020). Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1 Tahun 2020 tentang Pedoman Pemidanaan Pasal 2 dan Pasal 3 Undang-Undang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Official legal document.
