Disparity in verdicts, namely significant differences in penalties imposed by the courts in similar cases, has sparked controversy and doubt among the public. This issue calls for deep reflection on the principles of justice in Indonesia’s criminal justice system.
Verdict disparities result from various complex factors, including judges’ freedom in determining the type and severity of penalties, differing interpretations of facts and evidence, and a lack of clear guidelines for judges to determine appropriate penalties. This phenomenon creates legal uncertainty and undermines public trust in the judicial system.
The impact of verdict disparities is broad and serious. For defendants, these disparities can lead to feelings of injustice and damage trust in the judicial system. For the general public, legal uncertainty and perceptions of injustice can disrupt social stability and affect trust in the government.
The following are solutions that can be offered to address the issue of verdict disparities in Indonesia’s judicial system:
- The need for communication and coordination among panels of judges before delivering verdicts, conducted through informal limited exchanges of ideas and views, as well as reviewing previous verdicts issued by panels of judges. Fundamentally, judges should not influence each other and should be held firmly by judges throughout the District Courts in Indonesia, where every case submitted by the Chair to them is their full responsibility and they have the right to decide according to their competency independently without influence from any other judges.
- The need for a sentencing guideline created by Judges in their respective places of duty, done by distributing the maximum penalty equally with the minimum penalty or serving as a consideration for such sentencing guidelines that can produce average sentencing decisions. Although the verdicts may vary, the principles of justice and humanity remain considerations for judges.
- The need for jurisprudence that can be used as one of the sources of law that can still be utilized but not too much of a guideline for Judges but as additional knowledge for Judges in providing considerations in decisions.
- The need for judges to read literature so that judges do not fall behind in the developments that occur in the dynamic criminal world. Because as we know about the existing literature, it is usually the work of experts in the field of law that deserve to be the foundation or just input for Judges. Through reading literature, knowledge or input related to the profession of judges will be obtained which will certainly be very useful for improving the performance of judges.
- The need for judges to be aware of information conveyed by mass media both print and electronic. Information that is fast and easy to obtain nowadays is through the media and this is what becomes an issue in society related to the judicial world quickly known by many people. What is wanted and unwanted by the public, what issues arise in society, and public responses to the judicial world can almost entirely be obtained through mass media.
Author: Christine H.S. Hatirindah, S.H., M.H.
