Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Tindak Pidana Penyalahgunaan Narkotika Golongan I Bagi Diri Sendiri Dalam Perkara Nomor 43/ PID.SUS/2019/PN.PRP

Pratama, Yogi (2021) Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Tindak Pidana Penyalahgunaan Narkotika Golongan I Bagi Diri Sendiri Dalam Perkara Nomor 43/ PID.SUS/2019/PN.PRP. Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text 171010565.pdf - Submitted Version Download (2MB)

Abstract

ABSTRACT Based on the provisions of Article 182 Paragraph (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a judge in making a decision against a defendant must pay attention to 2 (two) things, namely deciding according to what the public prosecutor has charged and everything that is proven in the trial or in the form of at least two valid pieces of evidence However, in reality there are still judges' decisions that were handed down outside of the public prosecutor's indictment as in Case Number 43/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Prp. The main problem in this study is how the crime of narcotics abuse of class I occurred for oneself in Case Number 43/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Prp and what were the legal considerations of the panel of judges in Case Number 43/Pid.Sus/2019/PN. Prp. The research method used in this study is normative legal research, namely research on legal principles, comparative law by reviewing case files Number 43/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Prp and discussing it with reading materials obtained from various sources. From the results of the research that the author did, it is known that the act of abusing narcotics class I for oneself in Case Number 43/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Prp is outside the indictment of the Public Prosecutor and stipulates the defendant to be detained with imprisonment for 8 (eight) months with apply Article 127 of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics which is not indicted by the public prosecutor. The legal consideration of the panel of judges in Case Number 43/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Prp in passing a decision outside the indictment was due to a sense of justice, where the Judge was of the opinion that the narcotic evidence belonged to Mr. The stove (DPO) did not belong to the Defendant. The indictment using Article 114 Paragraph (1) or Article 112 Paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics with elements of the article possessing, storing, intermediary for buying and selling, or delivering Narcotics Category I is not fulfilled. According to the judge, the element of Article 127, namely the element of Narcotics abuse for oneself, was deemed more suitable to be applied to the Defendant.

Actions (login required)

View Item