English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

ABSTRAKDisparitas pidana juga sering dihubungkan dengan independensi hakim. Model pemidanaan yang diatur dalam perundang-undangan (perumusan sanksi pidana maksimal) juga ikut memberi andil. Dalam menjatuhkan putusan, hakim tidak boleh diintervensi pihak manapun. Rumusan masalah yang dikaji dalam penelitian ini adalah pertama, bagaimanakah disparitas putusan hakim jika dihubungkan dengan asas Nulla Poena sine lege dalam memberi batasan pada hakim dihubungkan dengan Pasal 4 Ayat (1) Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman. Kedua, apa dasar pertimbangan hakim dalam menjatuhkan putusan pidana terhadap pelaku tindak pidana narkotika di Wilayah Hukum Pengadilan Bangkinang khususnya pada Tahun 2019. Dalam melakukan penelitian ini, penulis menggunakan metode penelitian sebagai berikut, jenis dan sifat penelitian dari sudut metode yang di pakai dalam penelitian ini, maka penelitian ini berupa penelitian hukum normatif atau kepustakaan Dengan teknik pengumpulan data studi dokumen dan studi kepustakaan. Studi dokumen merupakan langkah awal dari setiap penelitian hukum (baik normatif maupun yang sosiologis) karena penelitian hukum selalu bertolak dari premis normatif, Sedangkan sifat penelitian ini adalah deskriptif, artinya penulis mencoba memberikan gambaran secara rinci mengenai disparitas putusan hakim pengadilan negeri bangkinang dalam perkara tindak pidana narkotika.Dilihat dari dua pokok pembahasan dan penelitian diatas maka penulis dapat menyimpulkan, pertama, disparitas putusan hakim jika dihubungkan dengan asas nulla poena sine lege dalam memberi batasan pada hakim dihubungkan dengan Pasal 4 Ayat (1) Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No. 48 Tahun 2009 Tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman: Asas nulla poena sine lege terdapat dalam pasal 1 kuhp guna memberikan batasan agar hakim tidak sewenang-wenang dalam memberikan putusan pemidanaan, akan tetapi dalam praktiknya hakim bebas memberikan putusan tanpa intervensi, Asas nulla poena sine lege warisan belanda tidak selaras dengan pasal 4 ayat 1 undang-undang republik indonesia no. 48 tahun 2009 tentang kekuasaan kehakiman. Kedua, dasar pertimbangan hakim dalam menjatuhkan putusan pidana terhadap pelaku tindak pidana narkotika di wilayah hukum pengadilan bangkinang khususnya pada tahun 2019, hakikatnya pertimbangan hakim hendaknya juga memuat tentang hal-hal sebagai berikut: Pokok persoalan dan hal-hal yang diakui atau dalil-dalil yang tidak disangkal. Adanya analisis secara yuridis terhadap putusan segala aspek menyangkut semua fakta / hal-hal yang terbukti dalam persidangan. Kata kunci: disparitas; putusan hakim; tindak pidana narkotikaABSTRACTCriminal disparity is also often associated with the independence of judges. The criminal punishment model regulated in legislation (the formulation of maximum criminal sanctions) also contributes. In passing a decision, a judge may not be intervened by any party. The formulation of the problem examined in this study is firstly, how is the disparity in the decision of the judge if it is related to the principle of Nulla Poena sine lege in giving limitations to the judge related to Article 4 Paragraph (1) of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power. Second, what is the basis of the judge's judgment in imposing a criminal decision on narcotics offenders in the Legal Area of the Bangkinang Court, especially in 2019.In conducting this research, the author uses the following research methods, types and nature of research from the point of view of the method used in this study, then this research is in the form of normative legal research or literature. Document study is the first step of any legal research (both normative and sociological) because legal research always departs from the normative premise, while the nature of this research is descriptive, meaning that the writer tries to give a detailed description of the disparity in decisions of the district court judges in criminal cases narcotics.Judging from the two points of discussion and research above, the writer can conclude, first, the disparity in the decision of the judge if it is related to the principle of nulla poena sine lege in giving limits to the judge connected with Article 4 Paragraph (1) of the Republic of Indonesia Law No. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power: The principle of nulla poena sine lege is contained in article 1 of the Kuhp in order to provide a limitation so that judges are not arbitrary in giving criminal decisions, but in practice judges are free to give decisions without intervention, the nulla poena sine lege principle is not inherited from the Dutch legacy. in line with article 4 paragraph 1 of the law of the Republic of Indonesia no. 48 of 2009 concerning judicial authority. Second, the basic consideration of judges in issuing criminal decisions against narcotics offenders in the jurisdiction of the Bangkinang court, especially in 2019, in essence the judges' considerations should also contain the following matters: Principal issues and matters that are recognized or arguments that are recognized not denied. There is a juridical analysis of the verdict on all aspects concerning all facts / proven matters in the trial.Keywords: disparity; judge decision; narcotics crime

DISPARITAS PUTUSAN HAKIM DALAM PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA NARKOTIKA DI WILAYAH HUKUM PENGADILAN NEGERI BANGKINANG