perpustakaan.fsh@uinjkt.ac.id
(021) 74711537
Selamat datang di
Perpustakaan Fakultas Syariah dan Hukum
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
Ketik kata kunci dan enter
DISPARITY OF JUDGE’S DECISIONS IN ONLINE GAMBLING CRIMINAL CASES (Study of Case Decisions Number 489/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Bgl and Number 64/Pid.Sus/2022/PN.Sel)
Ahmad Lutfi Tanjung - Personal Name
This research discusses the disparity of judge’s decisions in cases of online
gambling crimes, focusing on the comparison between two court decisions, namely
decisions number 489/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Bgl and number 64/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Sel).
Disparity in judge’s decisions is a situation where judges give different decisions or
criminal sanctions for the same type of criminal offense. The purpose of this study
is to analyze the judge’s considerations and identify the causes of disparity in
judge’s decisions.
The type of research used is normative research using a case approach and statute
approach. Data is collected by means of library research sourced from secondary
data, namely: primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. Primary legal
materials were obtained from books, legislation, court decisions. Secondary legal
materials are obtained from journals, documents, scientific works and the internet.
The data is processed qualitatively, namely analyzing two court decisions to find
the factors that cause disparity in judge’s decisions.
The results of this study indicate that the disparity in judge’s decisions between
decisions Number: 489/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Bgl and number 64/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Sel)
is caused by factors of legal consideration by judges. The difference in judge’s
considerations lies in non-juridical aspects, namely philosophical aspects and
sociological aspects. The two defendants were both proven to have committed the
crime of online gambling, but the duration of each defendant was different. The
defendant in decision number 489/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Bgl committed the criminal act
of gambling for 6 (six) months, while the defendant 64/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Sel,
committed the act for approximately 2 (two) years. In addition, the two defendants
not only played online gambling, but also benefited from each promoting and
providing opportunities for people to play gambling. The benefits obtained by the
two defendants are different. The different factors in the judge’s consideration
resulted in the disparity in the judge’s decision.
gambling crimes, focusing on the comparison between two court decisions, namely
decisions number 489/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Bgl and number 64/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Sel).
Disparity in judge’s decisions is a situation where judges give different decisions or
criminal sanctions for the same type of criminal offense. The purpose of this study
is to analyze the judge’s considerations and identify the causes of disparity in
judge’s decisions.
The type of research used is normative research using a case approach and statute
approach. Data is collected by means of library research sourced from secondary
data, namely: primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. Primary legal
materials were obtained from books, legislation, court decisions. Secondary legal
materials are obtained from journals, documents, scientific works and the internet.
The data is processed qualitatively, namely analyzing two court decisions to find
the factors that cause disparity in judge’s decisions.
The results of this study indicate that the disparity in judge’s decisions between
decisions Number: 489/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Bgl and number 64/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Sel)
is caused by factors of legal consideration by judges. The difference in judge’s
considerations lies in non-juridical aspects, namely philosophical aspects and
sociological aspects. The two defendants were both proven to have committed the
crime of online gambling, but the duration of each defendant was different. The
defendant in decision number 489/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Bgl committed the criminal act
of gambling for 6 (six) months, while the defendant 64/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Sel,
committed the act for approximately 2 (two) years. In addition, the two defendants
not only played online gambling, but also benefited from each promoting and
providing opportunities for people to play gambling. The benefits obtained by the
two defendants are different. The different factors in the judge’s consideration
resulted in the disparity in the judge’s decision.
Ketersediaan
| 006/PMH/2025 | 006/PMH2025 | Perpustakaan FSH Lantai 4 | Tersedia |
Informasi Detil
Judul Seri
-
No. Panggil
006/PMH2025
Penerbit
Fakultas Syuarah : UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakart., 2025
Deskripsi Fisik
viii, 92 hal; 28 cm
Bahasa
ISBN/ISSN
-
Klasifikasi
006/PMH2025
Informasi Detil
Tipe Isi
-
Tipe Media
-
Tipe Pembawa
-
Edisi
-
Subyek
-
Info Detil Spesifik
-
Pernyataan Tanggungjawab
-
Tidak tersedia versi lain