<![CDATA[This study is motivated by the sentencing disparity between Defendant I and Defendant II in a joint theft case despite both being charged under the same statutory provisions as evidenced in Sumber District Court Judgment Number 128/Pid.B/2026/PN Sbr. The study aims to analyze the application of the elements constituting joint theft and to identify the factors causing the sentencing difference between the two defendants. It employs a qualitative method within a normative (doctrinal) legal research framework, utilizing case, statutory, and conceptual approaches; secondary data comprising court judgments, legislation, books, and scholarly journals were analyzed using a descriptive-qualitative method. The results indicate that the application of Article 477 paragraph (1) letter g of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP) to both defendants satisfied the elements of "any person," the unlawful taking of another's property, and the commission of the act jointly and in concert. The sentencing disparity one year and five months for Defendant I versus one year for Defendant II (a five-month difference) was influenced by Defendant I’s status as a recidivist, the differing roles of executor versus driver, and the variance in the Public Prosecutor's sentencing demands. The findings reveal that while the disparity rests on a rational substantive basis grounded in the principles of sentencing individualization and proportionality, it remains procedurally weak; considerations regarding the individual factors of each defendant were not explicitly articulated and were instead formulated collectively. Consequently, judges need to strengthen their legal reasoning and elaborate on sentencing grounds in a manner that is individual, objective, transparent, and traceable to ensure justice and legal certainty.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
