Abstract

Additional fine penalty in corruption constitutes specific regulation. This aims to restore the state financial loss and to give deterrent effect. Yet, the judge's verdict raises problems: Why do the judge's verdicts related to subsidiary fine penality by imprisonment penalty tend to vary and inconsistent in length of the imprisonment. The purpose of the study is to identify and analyze the judge's consideration in determining various and inconsistent subsidiary fine penalty by imprisonment. The research applied normative juridical method by relying on primary and secondary legal materials. The results show that: 1) judges do not specifically regulate fine penalty or subsidiary in terms of imprisonment penalty. The large amount of fine penalty does not equal to the relatively short imprisonment which does not result in a deterrent effect. 2) There is no limit to the length of imprisonment for a short sentence. Thus, it is suggested that proportional regulation is required between fine penalty and imprisonment penalty subsidiary for restoring state financial loss. Keywords : fine penalty, imprisonment penalty subsdiary, judge's verdict

Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.