DISPARITAS PEMIDANAAN OLEH HAKIM TERHADAP TINDAK PIDANA TENTANG PERKOSAAN

Abstract

This study examines the many disparities in judges' decisions in determining a decision, especially in rape cases, which were recorded. This year, CATAHU recorded the dynamics of complaints of rape cases that occurred in Indonesia in 2023, namely 289,111. The existence of disparities in judges' decisions related to the same case but in different decision results always backfires on society with a sense of injustice, where the occurrence of these differences in decisions is based on several judges' considerations in producing accurate decisions. Therefore, a judge in making a decision must really consider fairly, wisely and have a comprehensive understanding of the case. Based on these problems, the formulation of the problem in this thesis research includes (1) What causes the disparity factor in judges' decisions in rape cases? (2) How are the judges' considerations so that disparities occur in decisions No. 16 / Pid.B / 2023 / Pn Mak and Number 2198 / Pid.B / 2023 / Pn Mdn?. The research method used is normative juridical research, meaning an approach taken by examining theories, concepts, and relevant legislation. 

The results of the study indicate that 1) the causes of disparity in judges' decisions in rape cases are: first, because the law provides a broad interpretation for judges with a maximum prison sentence of twelve years, allowing judges to impose different sanctions as long as they do not exceed the maximum limit. The reasons are apparent in each case. Third, the methods and motives of the defendants differed. Fourth, the resulting consequences also differed. 2) The judges' considerations that led to the disparity in decisions No. 16/Pid.B/2023/Pn Mak and No. 2198/Pid.B/2023/Pn Mdn: 1) legal considerations, namely the public prosecutor's indictment, the defendant's and witness statements, and the evidence. 2) non-legal considerations such as the perpetrator's background, the consequences of the perpetrator's actions, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the defendant's motives.