Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorSyahrin, Alvi
dc.contributor.advisorYunara, Edi
dc.contributor.advisorEkaputra, Mohammad
dc.contributor.authorPurba, Dina Eriza Valentine
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-21T02:07:28Z
dc.date.available2024-02-21T02:07:28Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositori.usu.ac.id/handle/123456789/91608
dc.description.abstractThe Panel of Judges has guidelines in handling narcotics crimes, namely SEMA No. 3 of 2015. The application of SEMA may deviate from the provisions of the Narcotics law. Stabat District Court Decision No. 472/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Stb and Lubukpakam District Court Decision No. 275/Pid.Sus/2015/PN-Lbp/LD is considered wrong in applying the law because it tries to apply SEMA No. 3 of 2015 In the research method in this writing is a normative research method. This research is a descriptive analysis that analyzes something that is done in a way that does not come out of the problem and is based on a theory or concept that is general in nature and is applied to explain a set of data, or shows a comparison or a set of data with another set of data. Hierarchically, the laws and regulations of Law no. 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics has a higher than SEMA No. 3 of 2015, therefore it is permissible to regulate lower rules that are higher than those that may be applied in terms of justice, may apply lower rules than higher rules. The presence of SEMA No. 3 of 2015 abolishes the special minimum criminal threat in 112 of the Narcotics Law with the conditions that evidence of the weight of goods is below 1 gram and Article 127 of the Narcotics Law. The application of Article 112 paragraph (1) and Article 127 paragraph (1) letter a of Law no. 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics Associated with SEMA No. 3 of 2015 in the decision of the Stabat District Court No. 472/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Stb which waived the fine and the Lubukpakam District Court Decision No. 275/Pid.Sus/2015/PN-Lbp/LD which excludes the special minimum punishment which, when viewed carefully, returns to the judge whether or not to take steps to implement disparity, especially in relation to SEMA 3 of 2015 concerning the Enforcement of the Formulation of the Results of the Plenary Meeting of the Supreme Court Chamber 2015 as a Guide to the Implementation of Duties for the Court in the section on the formulation of the law of the criminal chamber of the Narcotics section.en_US
dc.language.isoiden_US
dc.publisherUniversitas Sumatera Utaraen_US
dc.subjectNarcoticsen_US
dc.subjectCriminal Sanctionsen_US
dc.subjectDecision Courten_US
dc.subjectSDGsen_US
dc.titlePenerapan Pasal 112 Ayat (1) dan Pasal 127 Ayat (1) Huruf A Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2009 Tentang Narkotika dalam Kaitannya dengan Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3 Tahun 2015en_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.identifier.nimNIM187005161
dc.identifier.nidnNIDN0031036302
dc.identifier.nidnNIDN0022126005
dc.identifier.nidnNIDN0005107104
dc.identifier.kodeprodiKODEPRODI74101#Ilmu Hukum
dc.description.pages160 Halamanen_US
dc.description.typeTesis Magisteren_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record