<![CDATA[This research is motivated by the importance of analyzing the grounds for a judge's sentencing decision regarding perpetrators of joint theft specifically in Judgment Number 128/Pid.B/2026/PN Sbr, which reveals a disparity in sentences between Defendant I and Defendant II. The study aims to analyze the fulfillment of the elements of Article 477 paragraph (1) letter g of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code and to examine the judge's reasoning for imposing different sentences on the two defendants. A qualitative method with a normative-juridical approach was employed, utilizing literature reviews and legal document analysis specifically Judgment Number 128/Pid.B/2026/PN Sbr, relevant legislation, books, and journals. The results indicate that the elements of joint theft were deemed satisfied based on trial facts: the presence of legal subjects, the act of taking a motorcycle belonging to another, the intent of unlawful possession, and the involvement of both Defendant I and Defendant II in removing the vehicle from the scene. The findings reveal that the sentencing disparity 1 year and 5 months for Defendant I versus 1 year for Defendant II was based on the principle of sentencing individualization. This took into account each defendant's role, degree of culpability, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and criminal history; Defendant I had a prior conviction, whereas Defendant II had no criminal record. The study implies that imposing different sentences on perpetrators of the same offense can reflect proportional justice, provided it is grounded in trial facts and objective legal reasoning; thus, sentencing serves not merely as punishment but also aims to create a deterrent effect, facilitate rehabilitation, prevent recidivism, and ensure public protection.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
