| dc.description.abstract | The District Court's ruling in imposing sentence on a corrupting defendant does not give any justice to people because corruption has been running rampant and plundering the State's assets which cause people to become poorer. The Court's ruling on corruption criminal act in the Medan District Court is always lenient, compared with that in the Higher Court and of the Supreme Court. The process of investigation in the case of Johnny Arifin Siahaan had met the evidence and witness testimony in the hearing so that the defendant should have been imposed maximal sentence, but the ruling of the Medan District Court did not impose maximal sentence. The problems of the research were as follows: how about the role of the judge in upholding Law in criminal justice and how about the upholding of Law by a judge in corruption criminal act in the case of Johnny Arifin Siahaan.
The research used normative method which was a scientific research procedure for finding the truth based on logic of jurisprudence from its normative viewpoint. The nature of the research was descriptive analytic.
The role of a judge in upholding law in the system of criminal justice is that the judge is active and pays attention to witness and expert testimonies in the hearing. There are at least two valid pieces of evidence and judge's confidence for a court's evidence to impose a sentence. In the upholding of law by the judge on the corruption criminal act in the case of Johnny Arifin Siahaan, the Medan District Court's ruling did not impose maximal sentence, 20 years imprisonment and fine of one billion rupiahs. However, in the appeal to the higher court, the Supreme Court handed down the heavier ruling, compared with the ruling of the Medan District Court and of the Higher Court for corruption criminal act in Medan so that corruptors will get intimidated effect on their extraordinary crime. | en_US |
