Analisis Yuridis Putusan Hakim Penjatuhan Hukuman Bagi Pelaku Tindak Asusila Disertai Tindak Pidana Penganiayaan Di Pengadilan Negeri Padang (Studi Kasus Nomor 1020/PID.B/2023/PN PDG)

Andika Dermawan (Prodi S1 Ilmu Hukum, Fakultas Hukum, Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora, Universitas Dharma Andalas)
Sry Wahyuni (Prodi S1 Ilmu Hukum, Fakultas Hukum, Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora, Universitas Dharma Andalas)

Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pengkajian Ilmiah Sosial Budaya
Vol. 5 No. 2 (2026): Juli

This research analyzes the phenomenon of sentencing disparity in a case of assault accompanied by same-sex sexual violence in Court Decision Number 1020/Pid.B/2023/PN Pdg. The primary issue in this study is triggered by the imbalance between the severity of the crime facts revealed in court and the leniency of the 3 (three) year imprisonment sentence imposed by the judges. This discrepancy creates an impression of substantive injustice for the victim and weakens the deterrent effect of criminal law. The research problems addressed are: (1) How were the legal considerations of the judges in deciding case Number 1020/Pid.B/2023/PN Pdg; and (2) Whether the decision is in accordance with the prevailing laws and regulations in Indonesia. The research method employed is juridical-normative, supported by empirical data through interviews and literature studies. The research approaches include a statute approach and a case approach, analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study indicate that the judges' legal considerations in this case were based on the fulfillment of the elements of Article 289 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) point 1 of the Criminal Code. However, a critical finding suggests that the judges were trapped in a legal-positivistic paradigm, prioritizing mitigating factors for the defendant, such as cooperative behavior, without proportionally considering the unlawful nature of physical violence involving a screwdriver. Furthermore, the judges failed to apply the theory of multiple offenses (concursus realis), resulting in a non-maximal sentence. In conclusion, while the decision is valid from a formal-juridical perspective, it contains substantive flaws as it has not implemented the principle of victim-oriented justice. This inconsistency highlights the urgency of criminal justice system reform and the strengthening of sentencing guidelines to align with the spirit of legal reform in Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the National Criminal Code, which emphasizes balanced justice for the perpetrator, the victim, and society.