<![CDATA[Equality before the law constitutes a core principle of court justice, yet sentencing disparities continue to provoke public debate in Indonesia’s corruption cases. This paper examines how sentencing practices reflect and challenge the normative commitment to equality in criminal adjudication. Through doctrinal analysis of criminal law principles and comparative reading of selected corruption verdicts, the study explores variations in sentencing severity across cases with comparable legal and factual circumstances. The analysis suggests that judicial discretion, while legally permitted, often lacks sufficiently articulated justification, creating perceptions of unequal treatment. By focusing on sentencing as a site of justice evaluation, the paper highlights how court justice is shaped by consistency, proportionality, and transparency. It raises normative questions about the limits of judicial discretion and the role of sentencing guidelines in reinforcing public confidence in the criminal justice system.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
