Explore publications.

Efforts to prevent, protect and save the Indonesian people from the abuse of Narcotics as intended by The Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics are carried out through rehabilitation. The rehabilitation can release users from dependence and reduce the danger of disease for addicts and victims of abuse. The existence of rehabilitation is essentially the protection of human life and basic rights to health. It is in accordance with human values ??and legal objectives, namely to provide justice, benefit and legal certainty. These values ??are the basis for consideration that rehabilitation needs to be mandatory for addicts and victims of narcotics abusers. The overcoming narcotics crime by imposing imprisonment on addicts and victims of narcotics abuse certainly cannot break the chain of narcotics abuse. However, in practice, not all addicts and victims of narcotics abusers receive rehabilitation sanctions. The majority of the demands of the public prosecutor against the defendant are imprisonment, and only a few are demanding the imposition of rehabilitation, as well as the judge's decision. This is the evidence that the public prosecutor rarely demands rehabilitation for narcotics defendants. The existence of legal counsel and expert testimony is seen significant in influencing the judge to give a rehabilitation decision. This study will discuss on: 1) Analysis of judge's decisions for addicts and victims of narcotics abusers and 2) Reconstruction of rehabilitation arrangements in the narcotics law in the future. This research is normative juridical research examining various regulations regarding rehabilitation for addicts and victims of narcotics abusers as well as court decisions related to this problem. The legal materials used are analyzed qualitatively and presented in an analytical descriptive manner.

Indonesia recognizes the grounds of pardon in criminal law as stipulated in Article 44 of the Criminal Code (KUHP). One of the conditions that may be subjected to grounds of pardon is when the perpetrator of a criminal act is a person with a mental disorder, including schizophrenia. The consequence of this situation is that the perpetrator of a criminal act must be declared irresponsible for his actions and released from all criminal charges. However, in practice, the panel of judges would find the defendant with schizophrenia remain guilty since the judge would disregard the medical records or statements from psychiatric experts as evidence at trial. This article analyzes 2 Supreme Court Decisions, namely Supreme Court Decision No. 46 PK/Pid.Sus/2010 and Decision No. 94-K/PM.II-09/AD/V/2016. This research uses a normative juridical method. This research discusses the implementation of criminal sentences for persons with schizophrenia by confronting between field practices that remain sentencing persons with schizophrenia. Legal protections that able to be carried out by the state include terminating the prosecution, utilizing psychiatrists' statements as the basis for decisions, and deciding on defendants with acquittal decisions which in practice are not often found. This research concludes that legal protection for people with schizophrenia in Indonesia stays incongruent with the principles of criminal law and violates the principle of protecting the rights of the defendant. Law enforcement officials are remaining disregarding Article 44 of the Criminal Code by continuing to sentence, even executing people with schizophrenia who commit criminal acts even though there is a statement from a psychiatrist as valid evidence.

Narcotics crime in society (especially in Indonesia) shows an increasing trend both quantitatively and qualitatively with widespread victims, especially among children, adolescents, and the younger generation in general. Based on this, the government must increase efforts to prevent and eradicate narcotics crimes by any means, whether reforming the Narcotics Law, imposing strict sanctions and so on. The purpose of this research is to find out how the legal ratio of the Special Minimum Limit Regulation in the Law on Narcotics. This research is normative legal research with a conceptual approach and a philosophical approach. The legal materials used are primary and secondary with the technique of analyzing legal materials using the interpretation method. The results of the study indicate that the Ratio legis regulation specific minimum criminal provisions in the three laws studied, namely: the Narcotics Law and the Supreme Court Circular Number 03 of 2015, is intended to prevent disparities in the sentencing of crimes by judges. The regulation of types of criminal sanctions in legislation is one of the functions of the State to protect legal interests, in the form of life, property and dignity. The regulation of criminal sanctions is one of the criminal policy systems that can be seen from several aspects, namely the criminal system, namely: types of sanctions, alternative and cumulative forms of sanctions and their duration, namely the maximum-minimum of the punishment threatened.