<![CDATA[Purpose: This study examines the implementation of the right to legal aid for defendants in Category I methamphetamine narcotics cases, focusing on Decision Number 483/Pid.Sus/2025/PN Tjk.Research Methodology: This study used a normative-empirical juridical method through statutory, doctrinal, literature, and decision analysis, supported by interviews with a Tanjungkarang District Court judge, a Lampung Regional Police Narcotics Directorate officer, and a DPC PERADI Bandar Lampung advocate.Results: The results show that legal aid was procedurally fulfilled because the defendant was assisted by counsel during the trial. However, the decision contains a textual inconsistency concerning representation status, requiring attention to legal certainty and judicial-administrative accuracy. The offense was influenced by individual, social, economic, opportunity-related, and recidivism factors, including the weak deterrent effect of previous punishments.Conclusions: Legal aid in serious narcotic cases must be implemented clearly and consistently from investigation to trial as an essential part of due process.Limitations: This study is limited to one district court decision and excludes a detailed analysis of the previous judgment.Contributions: This study contributes to criminal procedure scholarship by strengthening the discussion on legal aid, judicial accuracy, and repeat narcotic offending.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
