Saputra, Dicky (2023) Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Dissenting Opinion Terhadap Putusan Bebas Perkara Penjual Chip Higgs Domino Pada Pengadilan Negeri Rokan Hilir. Masters thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text 211021098.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (3MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Polemics in society will emerge, when the Prosecutor imposes criminal charges and the judge imposes different sentences on the perpetrators of crimes. As in the case that the author examined below, the perpetrators of the crime of online gambling domino higgs were charged with Article 303 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code which was decided by the Rokan Hilir District Court in case Number 550/Pid.Sus/2021/PN.Rhl and case decision Number 158/Pid.B/2022/PN.Rhl, where these two decisions, the sentences given by the Judge of the Rokan Hilir District Court were very different from one another. Based on the background above, the formulation of the problem that will be answered in writing this thesis includes: How is the Disparity in Judges' Decisions Against Higgs Domino Chip Seller Cases at the Rokan Hilir District Court, and the Construction Basis of Thinking Judges Have Reflected a Sense of Justice in Giving Decisions Against the Same Case to seller of Higgs Domino Chips in Case Number 550/Pid.Sus/2021/PN.Rhl and case Number 158/Pid.B/2022/PN.Rhl. This research, when viewed from the type of research, this research is classified as legal research. This type of research is normative legal research. The data source comes from secondary data which is divided into three types of data, namely primary legal material, secondary legal material and tertiary legal material. Disparity in Judges' Decisions Against the Higgs Domino Chip Seller Case at the Rokan Hilir District Court that there has been a disparity in sentencing between the defendants Sahlanto alias Alan and Hermanto alias Abeng, where the difference occurred due to erroneous legal considerations carried out by the Panel of Judges against the two perpetrators, resulting in different decisions the conviction, Sahlanto alias Alan, who was only an agent for a Higgs Domino Chip Seller, was sentenced to 1 year and 2 months in prison, while Hermanto alias Abeng, who was also an agent for a Higgs Domino Chip Seller, was acquitted. Meanwhile, the basic construction of thinking is that the judge has reflected a sense of justice in giving a decision on the same case to the Higgs Domino chip seller in case number 550/Pid.Sus/2021/PN.Rhl and case number 158/Pid.B/2022/PN.Rhl that The Panel of Judges in making decisions for the two defendants, can be divided into two parts, namely those that are juridical and non-juridical in nature. Juridical in nature, seen from the prosecutor's indictment, the statements of the accused, witnesses, evidence and related articles, while non-juridical, namely ballast and mitigating reasons, and the social status of the defendants, where Sahlanto alias Alan is a Higgs Domino Chip Selling Agent, while Hermanto alias Abeng is not , and that turned out to make the sentencing different. Then, after the facts were concluded it was also followed by the conviction of the Panel of Judges, so that there was a difference in the imposition of criminal sanctions against the two defendant.

Actions (login required)

View Item