<![CDATA[Narcotics crimes remain one of the most significant challenges to criminal law enforcement in Indonesia, particularly concerning Class I narcotics, which carry a high potential for abuse and severe social consequences. Differences in judicial reasoning when imposing criminal sanctions may result in sentencing disparities and raise concerns regarding legal certainty, justice, and consistency in judicial decision-making. This study aims to analyze the legal reasoning employed by judges in imposing criminal sanctions on Class I narcotics offenders and to examine whether the judicial considerations reflected in Decision Number 17/Pid.Sus/2025/PN Jkt.Pst are consistent with the provisions of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics, the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code, and the fundamental principles of Indonesian criminal law. This research adopts a normative juridical approach using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Legal materials were collected through library research, including legislation, court decisions, legal doctrines, and scholarly literature, and analyzed qualitatively. The findings indicate that the judges’ reasoning was primarily based on legally admissible evidence, witness testimony, the defendant’s statement, material evidence, and relevant statutory provisions governing narcotics offenses. Furthermore, the court considered both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, reflecting juridical, philosophical, and sociological dimensions of criminal sentencing. The decision generally fulfills the principles of legal certainty, justice, and legal utility. Nevertheless, greater consistency in judicial reasoning is required to minimize sentencing disparities and strengthen the effectiveness of narcotics law enforcement in Indonesia. The study contributes to the development of Indonesian criminal law scholarship by providing a critical evaluation of judicial reasoning in narcotics cases and offering recommendations for more consistent sentencing practices.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
