Abstract
The disparity of decisions in corruption trials has become a significant issue in the Medan District Court. The purpose of this study is to examine and analyze the factors that cause disparities in decisions in cases of corruption in that court. The research method used is a qualitative approach by collecting data through interviews with judges, prosecutors and lawyers involved in corruption cases. The results of the study indicate that there are several factors that contribute to the disparity of decisions in the Medan District Court. These factors include subjective interpretation of facts and law, judges' knowledge and awareness of existing guidelines, limited resources, and the quality of evidence and various investigative processes. The disparity of decisions in trials of corruption can threaten justice and public trust in the justice system. Therefore, efforts are needed to overcome this disparity. Recommendations resulting from this research include more intensive training and education for judges, increased coordination and collaboration between stakeholders, allocation of adequate resources, and regular evaluation of the implementation of existing guidelines. This research is expected to provide a more in-depth understanding of the problem of decision disparity in corruption trials at the Medan District Court. Through this understanding, it is hoped that corrective steps can be taken to achieve harmonization of decisions and ensure justice that is in line with legal objectives and the interests of society.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call