SANKSI PIDANA PENJARA BAGI KORBAN PENYALAHGUNAAN NARKOTIKA GOLONGAN I (STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NEGERI JAKARTA UTARA NOMOR 796/PID.SUS/2015/PN.JKT.UTR)

Abstract

Conflict between Article 127 section (1) and section (2) and (3). In Article 127 section (1) the judge can convict a narcotics abuser, while in section (2) and (3) it is stated that the judge is obliged to rehabilitate addicts and victims. Therefore, it is very interesting and important to examine further the basis of the judge's considerations in imposing prison sentences for narcotics abuse according to decision Number 796/PID. SUS/2015/PN. JKT. UTR? And what is the decision of the North Jakarta District Court Number: 796/PID. SUS/2015/PN. JKT. UTR has fulfilled the provisions in article 127 of Law no. 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. To answer these problems, normative juridical legal research methods are used with statutory and conceptual regulatory approaches. Data obtained from primary, secondary and tertiary legal material sources were collected and then analyzed using qualitative data analysis techniques. From the research results, it was found that the consideration of the North Jakarta Court Judge in examining and deciding on narcotics cases with Decision Number: Number: 796/PID.SUS/2015/PN.JKT.UTR by imposing a prison sentence of 2 (years) 6 (six) months not in accordance with applicable legal regulations, namely not in accordance with Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics where in Article 127 in paragraphs (2) and (3) it is stated that Judges are obliged to rehabilitate addicts and victims of narcotics abuse. Decision Number: 796/PID.SUS/2015/PN. JKT.UTR by imposing a prison sentence of 2 (years) 6 (six) months is in accordance with applicable legal regulations but not in accordance with SEMA Number 4 of 2010, there is a regulation that narcotics abusers are required to undergo rehabilitation.