<![CDATA[Differences in corruption sentences raise questions about equality, proportionality, and the exercise of judicial discretion. However, unequal sentences do not necessarily demonstrate unjustified disparity because legally relevant differences between cases may warrant different outcomes. This article examines the normative framework for evaluating sentencing disparity and judicial reasoning in corruption proceedings within the institutional setting of Jambi City. It employs normative legal research through statutory and conceptual approaches, supported by scholarship available through 2023. Particular attention is given to Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020, whose sentencing guidelines concern Articles 2 and 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law. The analysis identifies offence classification, financial harm, individual culpability, participation, benefits, and aggravating or mitigating circumstances as essential considerations in a legally meaningful comparison. It argues that the quality of judicial explanation is central to distinguishing justified differentiation from inconsistent punishment. The article proposes a comparative framework that separates imprisonment, fines, and additional penalties while accounting for procedural differences. Its contribution is a normative method for examining Jambi City cases without presuming an empirically established local disparity. Consistency requires comparable cases, accurate factual findings, and transparent reasons connecting sentencing factors with the punishment imposed.]]>
Copyrights © 2023
