Penerapan Pasal 112 dan Pasal 127 Ayat 1 Huruf A Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2009 tentang Narkotika (Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Rantau Prapat Nomor 023/Pid.Sus/2018/PN.RAP; 762/Pid.Sus/2017/PN.Rap; 712/Pid.Sus/2017/PN.Rap)

Abstract

Based on the explanation of regulated in Article 112 and Article 127 of Law Number 35 of 2009 on Narcotics, there are things that cause multiple interpretations or ambiguity in its application, while Article 127 is often applied to victims of narcotics abusers. The role of law enforcement in applying Article 112 and Article 127 of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics to narcotics criminals is expected to be a deterrent factor for increasing narcotics crimes. Law enforcers are expected to be able to decide sentences that can fulfill a sense of justice and legal certainty by considering witnesses and evidence. The problems that will be discussed in this research are the formulations and differences in qualifications in article 112 and article 127 advises 1 letter a law of number 35 of 2009 on narcotics and the basis for judges' considerations in applying Articles127 advises 1 letter a law of number 35 of 2009 on narcotics in Number 1023/Pid.Sus/2018/PN.RAP; 762/Pid.Sus/2017/PN.Rap; 712/Pid.Sus/2017/PN.Rap This research employs the method of normative research with descriptive analysis with the approach method that will be applied using the Normative approach method. The data used are secondary data and literature study. The research technique is carried out by means of library research. In this research, qualitative normative analysis method is used The result of this study is that in Article 127 advises 1 letter a there is no firm formulation. Whereas Article 112 Paragraph 2 is used as a qualification for possessing, storing, controlling or providing narcotics class I, not plants with the category of being a dealer in large quantities of narcotics, while Article 127 Paragraph 1 letter a is a qualification for narcotics abusers for themselves with the category of narcotics in large quantities. small. That the judge's consideration in Decision Number: 1023/Pid. Sus/2018/PNRap in the form of the Public Prosecutor's indictment is not used as a guide in preparing its decision, while in Decision Number: 762/Pid Sus/2017/PN Rap and Decision Number: 712 /Pid. Sus /2017/ PN Rap the Panel of Judges used the Public Prosecutor's indictment as a guide in drafting its decision.