Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Penyalahgunaan narkotika merupakan permasalahan serius di Indonesia yang terus mengalami peningkatan, baik dari segi jumlah pengguna maupun peredarannya. Tercatat ada 212 jumlah putusan perkara penyalahguna narkotika dalam 3 tahun terakhir di Pengadilan Negeri Banda Aceh dan hanya terdapat 2 putusan saja yang di rehabilitasi. Padahal Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2009 tentang Narkotika pada Pasal 54 telah mengatur bahwa pecandu dan korban penyalahgunaan narkotika wajib menjalani rehabilitasi medis dan rehabilitasi sosial. Namun, di Pengadilan Negeri Banda Aceh putusan rehabilitasi masih sangat jarang dijatuhkan dibandingkan dengan pidana penjara dan denda. Kondisi ini menimbulkan permasalahan mengenai pertimbangan hakim dalam menjatuhkan sanksi rehabilitasi.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan pertimbangan hakim dalam menjatuhkan sanksi rehabilitasi terhadap penyalahguna narkotika, faktor-faktor yang menyebabkan hakim jarang menjatuhkan putusan rehabilitasi, serta pelaksanaan sanksi rehabilitasi berdasarkan putusan Hakim di wilayah hukum Pengadilan Negeri Banda Aceh.

Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis-empiris yang diperoleh melalui penelitian lapangan yaitu wawancara dengan hakim, jaksa, dan petugas rehabilitasi, serta penelitian kepustakaan.

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa dalam menjatuhkan sanksi rehabilitasi, hakim mempertimbangkan beberapa aspek penting, yaitu hasil asesmen terpadu, jumlah barang bukti, pembedaan antara penyalahguna dan pengedar, keterangan ahli, serta keadaan yang meringankan dan memberatkan. Namun, dalam praktiknya, putusan rehabilitasi masih jarang dijatuhkan. Hal ini disebabkan oleh beberapa faktor, antara lain tidak adanya hasil asesmen sejak tahap penyidikan, tidak dicantumkannya tuntutan rehabilitasi oleh penuntut umum, jumlah barang bukti yang melebihi batas pengguna, status terdakwa sebagai residivis, serta keterbatasan waktu dalam proses penuntutan.

Disarankan agar asesmen terpadu dilakukan sejak tahap penyidikan sebagai dasar pertimbangan hakim dalam menjatuhkan putusan rehabilitasi. Hakim juga diharapkan lebih independen dalam menggali fakta persidangan dan mempertimbangkan rehabilitasi bagi penyalahguna narkotika. Selain itu, diperlukan peningkatan koordinasi antara penyidik, penuntut umum, dan BNN, serta peran aktif penuntut umum dalam mengajukan tuntutan rehabilitasi.

Drug abuse remains a serious and escalating problem in Indonesia, as reflected in the increasing number of users and the widespread circulation of illicit narcotics. Within the jurisdiction of the Banda Aceh District Court, a total of 212 narcotics abuse cases were adjudicated over the past three years, yet only two resulted in rehabilitation orders. This is despite Article 54 of Law Number 35 of 2009 on Narcotics, which expressly mandates that narcotics addicts and victims of narcotics abuse undergo medical and social rehabilitation. In practice, however, the Banda Aceh District Court has imposed rehabilitation far less frequently than imprisonment and fines. This disparity raises important legal issues concerning the judicial considerations underlying the imposition of rehabilitation sanctions. This study aims to examine the judicial considerations in imposing rehabilitation sanctions on narcotics abusers, identify the factors contributing to the infrequent issuance of rehabilitation orders, and analyze the implementation of rehabilitation sanctions pursuant to judicial decisions within the jurisdiction of the Banda Aceh District Court. This research employs an empirical juridical approach, combining field research through interviews with judges, public prosecutors, and rehabilitation officers, with library research involving the analysis of relevant legislation, legal literature, and judicial decisions. The findings indicate that, in determining whether to impose rehabilitation, judges consider several key factors, including the results of the Integrated Assessment Team, the quantity of narcotics seized as evidence, the distinction between narcotics abusers and traffickers, expert testimony, and both mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Nevertheless, rehabilitation orders remain exceptionally rare in practice. This is primarily attributable to the absence of an integrated assessment during the investigation stage, the failure of public prosecutors to seek rehabilitation in their indictments or sentencing demands, the quantity of narcotics exceeding the threshold generally associated with personal use, the defendant's status as a repeat offender, and time constraints encountered during the prosecution process. Accordingly, this study recommends that integrated assessments be conducted from the investigation stage to provide judges with a sound evidentiary basis for imposing rehabilitation. Judges should also exercise greater judicial independence in evaluating the facts established during trial and give due consideration to rehabilitation for eligible narcotics abusers. Furthermore, stronger coordination among investigators, public prosecutors, and the National Narcotics Agency (BNN) is essential, together with a more proactive role by public prosecutors in seeking rehabilitation as an appropriate sentencing measure.