<![CDATA[Judges’ rulings in criminal cases are not based solely on normative legal considerations, but also involve non-legal considerations related to humanitarian, social, and substantive justice aspects. This study aims to analyze judges’ non-legal considerations in rendering criminal judgments at the Kotabumi District Court, specifically in Judgment No. 136/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Kbu, and to examine their relevance to various theories of punishment and legal reasoning. This study employs an empirical legal research method with a qualitative and sociological-legal approach. Data were obtained through a study of the judgment and a literature review of relevant legal theories, such as the Theory of Judicial Discretion, the Theory of the Purposes of Punishment, the Theory of Justice, the Theory of Non-Legal Factors in Decision-Making, the Theory of Legal Argumentation, the Theory of Objectivity, and the Theory of Proportionality in Punishment. The results of the study indicate that judges at the Kotabumi District Court utilize non-legal considerations as part of their judicial discretion to balance legal certainty, justice, and public interest. These considerations reflect a more humanistic sentencing paradigm, in which criminal acts are understood not only as violations of legal norms but also as social phenomena requiring a proportional and just response. However, this study also found that the use of non-legal considerations has the potential to create disparities in sentencing if not accompanied by rational and transparent legal arguments. Therefore, this study emphasizes the importance of formulating non-legal considerations in a systematic and argumentative manner to strengthen the legitimacy of criminal judgments and improve the quality of law enforcement at the district court level.]]>
