ANALISIS DISPARITAS PUTUSAN HAKIM DALAM PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA DI BIDANG KEHUTANAN (STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN NOMOR 10/PID.SUS/2018/PN WNS DAN PUTUSAN NOMOR 89/PID.B/LH/2020/PN.BLS)

Abstract

In criminal case decisions, it is known that there is a gap in sentencing which is better known as
disparity. The disparity in sentencing has a deep impact, because it contains a constitutional balance
between individual freedom and the state's right to convict. This can be seen in the judge's decision in
the forestry crime Number 10/Pid.Sus/2018/PN Wns and Decision Number 89/Pid.B/LH/2020/PN.Bls
One decision with another decision which has the characteristics of a criminal offense are the same
and there are similarities in the articles charged but have different decisions. The purpose of writing
this thesis: First, to answer and solve the problem of disparity in decisions on forest destruction
crimes in Decision Number 10/Pid.Sus/2018/PN Wns and Decision Number 89/Pid.B/LH/2020/PN.Bls
.Second , to find factors that cause disparities in criminal decisions on forest destruction in decisions
Number 10/Pid.Sus/2018/PN Wns and Decisions Number 89/Pid.B/LH/2020/PN.Bls. The author
conducts research using normative juridical methods or literature studies in order to obtain secondary
data through documentary studies, namely by studying and analyzing in a comparative deductive way
the laws and regulations with theories that have a relationship to the problems studied.
From the results of this study, there are two main problems: First, what is the analysis of the
disparity in the decision on forest destruction in the decision Number 10/Pid.Sus/2018/PN Wns and
Decision Number 89/Pid.B/LH/2020/PN.Bls, Second, What are the factors causing the disparity of
forest destruction criminal decisions in decisions Number 10/Pid.Sus/2018/PN Wns and Decisions
Number 89/Pid.B/LH/2020/PN.Bls.
The author's suggestion in this study is the importance of understanding the nature of the law
itself. As in the case that has been studied, one of the reasons for the difference is due to a difference
in paradigm in viewing the nature of the law itself so that the desired justice is not achieved. Law
Number 18 of 2013 Concerning the Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction should not be
interpreted partially, which has implications for the vulnerability of people living around forest areas
to being snared by this Law. The paradigm adopted and the method of interpretation applied will
affect the quality of the judge's decision. For this reason, judges need to consider all aspects in
making a decision.
Keywords : Disparity-Crime-Forestry