Analisis Yuridis Disparitas Pidana Terhadap Putusan Pengadilan Penyalah Guna Narkotika Kaitannya Dengan Barang Bukti Melebihi Penyalah Guna

Abstract

The illicit trafficking and abuse of narcotics in Indonesia has become a serious issue affecting various societal layers. Law enforcement against narcotics-related crimes often faces sentencing disparities, particularly when the evidence exceeds the threshold for personal use. The lack of clear guidelines regarding the possession limits for drug abusers, coupled with subjective judicial considerations, exacerbates this issue, potentially undermining the consistency of the legal system. This study aims to analyze the problem of the regulation of possession thresholds for drug abusers, the legal proof in narcotics cases concerning evidence exceeding personal use, and judicial considerations in court decisions. The research is based on three narcotics crime cases adjudicated by the Medan District Court. The ultimate goal of this study is to propose solutions to address sentencing disparities through more explicit guidelines. The research employs a normative juridical method, utilizing case and statutory approaches. Data were obtained through court decision analyses, and literature reviews. An analytical approach was applied to examine the relevance of evidence, charges, and verdicts within the context of Indonesia's legal system. The findings reveal that (1) the absence of clear possession thresholds for drug abusers significantly contributes to sentencing disparities; (2) evidence assessment in narcotics-related cases is often influenced by the subjective interpretation of judges; and (3) sentencing disparities arise due to the lack of consistent guidelines for determining punishments based on evidence. This study recommends expanding the guidelines outlined in Supreme Court Circular (SEMA) No. 4 of 2010 and introducing explicit thresholds for evidence to provide legal certainty and prevent sentencing disparities.