Legal Analysis of Differences in Court Decisions in Narcotics Crimes

Abstract

The difference in court decisions in narcotics crimes creates legal uncertainty and raises questions about the principle of justice. The phenomenon of differences in verdicts arises due to differences in the judge's interpretation of legal facts, evidence, and considerations regarding the elements of the criminal act charged. In practice, cases with similar characteristics often have different verdicts, both in terms of the length of the prison sentence, the type of additional penalty, and the juridical considerations used. This has an impact on decreasing public trust in the consistency of the criminal justice system. The research method used is a normative juridical approach by examining related laws and regulations, legal doctrines, and court decisions. The results of the analysis show that differences in judges' decisions in narcotics cases can be caused by internal factors, such as judge independence and subjective considerations, as well as external factors, such as social pressure, disparities in law enforcement, and the absence of uniform penal guidelines. Juridically, this difference raises debates about the principle of legal certainty and the principle of justice, where inconsistent decisions have the potential to violate the principle of equality before the law. This study emphasizes the need to strengthen criminal guidelines and consistency of legal interpretation in order to create a fairer, more balanced, and in accordance with legal objectives.