Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Disparitas pidana merupakan perbedaan penjatuhan pidana terhadap perkara yang memiliki pola fakta hukum relatif serupa. Dalam tindak pidana pencurian dengan pemberatan sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 363 ayat (1) ke-5 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP), perbedaan tersebut dapat menimbulkan persoalan mengenai kepastian hukum dan rasa keadilan. Pada Pengadilan Negeri Banda Aceh terdapat dua putusan dengan karakteristik perkara yang sejenis, yaitu Putusan Nomor 343/Pid.B/2019/PN Bna yang dijatuhkan pidana penjara selama 10 (sepuluh) bulan dan Putusan Nomor 89/Pid.B/2023/PN Bna dijatuhkan pidana penjara selama 3 (tiga) tahun, sehingga menunjukkan adanya perbedaan pemidanaan yang signifikan.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan pertimbangan hakim dalam kedua putusan tersebut, menganalisis faktor-faktor penyebab terjadinya disparitas pidana, serta menjelaskan upaya untuk mengatasi disparitas dalam tindak pidana pencurian dengan pemberatan.

Metode yang digunakan adalah yuridis empiris dengan pendekatan deskriptif analitis. Data diperoleh melalui penelitian kepustakaan terhadap peraturan perundang-undangan, literatur hukum, dan putusan pengadilan, serta penelitian lapangan melalui wawancara dengan hakim, jaksa, advokat, dan akademisi.

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa perbedaan penjatuhan pidana oleh hakim disebabkan oleh perbedaan penilaian terhadap fakta-fakta persidangan, baik yang bersifat yuridis maupun non-yuridis, seperti tingkat kesalahan terdakwa, keadaan yang memberatkan dan meringankan, serta latar belakang dan dampak perbuatan. Kondisi tersebut memberikan ruang diskresi kepada hakim sehingga berpotensi menimbulkan disparitas pidana.

Disarankan agar aparat penegak hukum lebih mengedepankan konsistensi dan proporsionalitas dalam menjatuhkan pidana serta perlunya penyusunan pedoman pemidanaan yang lebih terstruktur guna mewujudkan keadilan, kemanfaatan dan kepastian hukum.

Sentencing disparity refers to differences in the imposition of criminal sanctions in cases involving relatively similar legal factual patterns. In the offense of aggravated theft as regulated under Article 363 paragraph (1) point 5 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana), such differences may raise concerns regarding legal certainty and the sense of justice. At the Banda Aceh District Court, there are two decisions involving similar case characteristics, namely Decision Number 343/Pid.B/2019/PN Bna, in which the defendant was sentenced to 10 (ten) months of imprisonment, and Decision Number 89/Pid.B/2023/PN Bna, in which the defendant was sentenced to 3 (three) years of imprisonment, thereby reflecting a significant disparity in sentencing. This study aims to explain the judicial considerations in both decisions, to analyze the factors contributing to the occurrence of sentencing disparity, and to examine measures to overcome such disparity in aggravated theft cases. The method used in this research is empirical juridical with a descriptive-analytical approach. The data were obtained through library research on statutory regulations, legal literature, and court decisions, as well as field research conducted through interviews with judges, prosecutors, advocates, and academics. The results of the study show that the differences in sentencing imposed by the judges were caused by differences in the assessment of the facts presented during the trial, both juridical and non-juridical, such as the degree of the defendant’s culpability, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as well as the background and impact of the criminal act. Such conditions provide judges with discretionary authority, thereby creating the potential for sentencing disparity. It is recommended that law enforcement authorities place greater emphasis on consistency and proportionality in sentencing, and that more structured sentencing guidelines be established in order to realize justice, utility, and legal certainty.