cover
Contact Name
Yohanes Michael
Contact Email
yohanes.michael@staff.unpatti.ac.id
Phone
+6285243175321
Journal Mail Official
jurnalpamali@mail.unpatti.ac.id
Editorial Address
Program Pascasarjana Universitas Pattimura, Kampus Unpatti, Jalan. Dr. Latumeten, Ambon, Maluku 97166, Indonesia.
Location
Kota ambon,
Maluku
INDONESIA
PAMALI: Pattimura Magister Law Review
Published by Universitas Pattimura
ISSN : -     EISSN : 27755649     DOI : https://doi.org/10.47268/pamali
Core Subject : Social,
PAMALI: Pattimura Magister Law Review will publish the only paper strictly following guidelines and manuscript preparation. All submitted manuscripts are going through a double-blind peer review process. Those papers are read by editorial members (upon field of specialization) and will be screened by Managing Editor to meet necessary criteria of publication in two weeks. Every submitted manuscript which passes this step will be checked by Plagiarism Checker X to identify any plagiarism. Manuscripts will be sent to two reviewers, based on their historical experience in reviewing manuscript or based on their field of specialisation. The time period for review is three weeks. PAMALI: Pattimura Magister Law Review has reviewing forms in order to keep same items reviewed by two reviewers. Then editorial board will make a decision upon the reviewers comments or advice. Reviewers will give their assessment on originality, clarity of presentation, contribution to the field/science. The scope of the articles contained in this journal discusses various topics in the areas of Criminal Law Civil Law Constitutional Law International Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Customary Law and other parts related to contemporary issues in the field of law.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 151 Documents
Consistency and Disparity of Verdicts in Corruption Crimes: Comparative Court Decisions on Bribery Cases Madjid, Abdul; Putra, Dony Setiawan
PAMALI: Pattimura Magister Law Review Vol. 6 No. 2 (2026): JULY
Publisher : Postgraduate Program in Law, Universitas Pattimura

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.47268/pamali.v6i2.3769

Abstract

Introduction: Corruption, particularly bribery, remains a major issue in Indonesia, impacting not only the economy and the country's finances but also undermining public trust in state institutions. Bribery within government creates social inequality and hinders development aimed at achieving a fair and prosperous society. Despite existing regulations aimed at combating corruption, inconsistencies in sanctions and disparities in court decisions remain significant problems. Purposes of the Research: The purpose of this study is to identify whether the reality of court rulings in bribery cases in 2013 and 2023 reflects the goals outlined in Law Number 20 of 2001 on the eradication of corruption, and to analyze whether there is any disparity in these rulings caused by different judicial considerations. Methods of the Research: This research employs a normative legal research method, using statute approach, conceptual approach, and analytical approach. The statute approach is used to analyze the legal provisions in Law Number 31 of 1999 as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001, particularly those regulating bribery offenses. The conceptual approach is used to understand the legal concepts of justice and legal certainty in sentencing. The analytical approach is applied to compare court rulings in 2013 and 2023 and identify any potential disparities. Results Main Findings of the Research: The research reveals that there is a disparity in sentencing for bribery cases, despite the clarity of existing legal provisions. The differences in sentences imposed by judges are influenced by varying judicial considerations, such as the defendant's confession, the return of illicit gains, and the defendant’s role in the case. The study also found that although sentencing guidelines have been implemented, consistency in sentencing needs further improvement. This highlights the importance of enhancing clearer and more structured sentencing guidelines to reduce unwarranted disparities in punishment.