<![CDATA[Judicial decisions on rehabilitation for narcotics abusers often require judges to reconcile criminal accountability with rehabilitative objectives, yet the parameters guiding such discretion remain insufficiently structured. This study examines the ratio decidendi underlying judicial discretion in Judgment No. 1365/Pid.Sus/2017/PN.Tjk and develops parameters for more consistent rehabilitation decisions. This study employs normative legal research using statutory, case, and conceptual approaches to examine the legal provisions on narcotics rehabilitation, Judgment No. 1365/Pid.Sus/2017/PN.Tjk, and the concepts of judicial discretion, ratio decidendi, punishment, and rehabilitation. The legal materials are analyzed through qualitative legal interpretation and prescriptive reasoning. The findings show that the decision combined imprisonment with rehabilitation; however, the reasoning within it lacked an explicit and structured framework for exercising discretion. This study reconstructs four parameters: normative, medical, juridical, and the purpose of sentencing. These parameters are operationalized through six stages of legal reasoning, ranging from identifying applicable norms, reconstructing proven facts, integrating assessment findings, correlating facts with legal requirements, exercising structured discretion, and formulating sanctions. This model contributes to individualized sentencing by providing a more transparent framework for balancing legal certainty, justice, rehabilitation, and the protection of society.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
