<![CDATA[Sentencing decisions that fall below the specific minimum stipulated by law are, at first glance, considered a violation of the principle of legality, which requires that punishment strictly follow the written law. However, within the framework of Judicial Activism, such decisions may be justified when they adhere to the fundamental principles of criminal law, reflect the dynamic development of legal thought, and protect the defendant’s fundamental rights from arbitrary or disproportionate enforcement. This study aims to analyze the extent to which judges may exercise judicial activism when imposing sentences below the statutory minimum. The research employs a normative legal method using statutory and conceptual approaches to reinterpret the principle of legality in its function as a regulatory instrument in criminal law and in relation to the concept of criminal responsibility. The study explores how the judiciary, as an independent pillar of the legal system, can play a corrective role in achieving substantive justice. The findings reveal two key conclusions. First, Judicial Activism may be applied within the bounds of the principle of legality, enabling judges to rectify prosecutorial errors and issue fairer sentences by balancing the defendant’s culpability with the circumstances surrounding the crime. This flexibility ensures that the law serves justice rather than rigid formalism. Second, judges must use clear guidelines when exercising such discretion, notably by assessing the degree of the defendant’s responsibility and the factual findings revealed during trial proceedings. Ultimately, this study underscores that judicial activism, when grounded correctly in legal reasoning and human rights protection, strengthens the legitimacy and humanity of the criminal justice system.]]>
