Criminal Disparities Research Articles

Meminimalisir Terjadinya Disparitas Pidana Dengan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana Nasional

Criminal problems recognize the existence of an inequality in the provision of criminal sentences which is called disparity. Criminal disparity is a different or unequal criminal implementation for criminals who commit similar or similar criminal acts. Criminal disparities will become a problem in the future if they are related to administrative education. Where the perpetrator will make a comparison regarding the crime that other people can afford. There will be an incident of injustice regarding criminal differences which will have implications for negative stigma by prisoners and the community which will strengthen judicial injustice in determining the imposition of criminal decisions. In this case, there are many aspects that cause criminal disparities. Criminal problems recognize the existence of an inequality in the provision of criminal sentences which is called disparity. Criminal disparity is a different or unequal criminal implementation for criminals who commit similar or similar criminal acts. Criminal disparities will become a problem in the future if they are related to administrative education. Where the perpetrator will make a comparison regarding the crime that other people can afford. There will be an incident of injustice regarding criminal differences which will have implications for negative stigma by prisoners and the community which will strengthen judicial injustice in determining the imposition of criminal decisions. In this case, there are many aspects that cause criminal disparities.

THE APPLICATION OF DIFFERENT CRIMINAL SANCTIONS AGAINST DRUG ABUSERS IS CONNECTED WITH ARTICLE 112 PARAGRAPH (1) OF LAW NUMBER 35 OF 2009 CONCERNING NARCOTICS

The application of different criminal sanctions or criminal disparities is the application of criminal sanctions, in this case the application of criminal sanctions that are not the same or for criminal acts whose dangerous nature can be compared without a clear basis for awarding them. The problem raised in this study is how the Judge considers in applying different criminal sanctions against narcotics abusers in decision number 203/Pid.Sus/2021/Pn.Blt and number 295/Pid.Sus/ 2021/PN.Blt and what are the factors that result in differences in the application of criminal sanctions to the two decisions above. This study uses a normative juridical approach. The results of this study are the Judge's considerations in decision number 203/Pid.Sus/2021/Pn.Blt The Judge based on the legal facts revealed at the trial that the Defendant Yamsul Arifin was an abuser for himself so that the Judge in applying criminal sanctions deviated from special minimum criminal provisions in Article 112 paragraph (1), while the Judge's consideration in decision number 295/Pid.Sus/2021/Pn.Blt that the Defendant Elysa Sadola is a trafficker so the Judge continues to apply a sentence between the minimum and maximum limits specifically in Article 112 paragraph (1) Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. Then the factors that result in the application of different criminal sanctions against narcotics abusers in the two decisions are differences in legal facts revealed in court, there are multiple interpretations in Article 112 paragraph (1), discretion or freedom of judges, and the absence of sentencing guidelines.

Aspects of Justice towards Criminal Disparity for Drug Abusers

Convicted narcotics abusers after being imprisoned comparing the imposition of punishment with other convicts will feel that their detention period is much longer than that of other convicts even though they have the same criminal offense. Based on these legal issues, the problems to be discussed are the factors causing disparity in judges' decisions against narcotics abusers and the basis for judges' considerations in imposing different decisions on narcotics abusers based on Decision Number 156/Pid.Sus/2021/PN.Met, Decision Number 39/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Met and Decision Number 134/Pid.Sus/2021. The methods used in this research are normative juridical and empirical juridical approaches using primary and secondary data. Data collection using the literature study method and supported by the results of research interviews. Based on the results of the study, the factors causing disparity are that there are no guidelines for judges in deciding criminal acts of narcotics abuse, then the judge factor is due to the judge having very broad freedom so that it gives the judge discretion to impose a sentence. Juridically, the judge's consideration is based on legal facts revealed in the trial, while non-juridically is the judge's judgment outside of the revealed legal facts. Judges in making legal considerations must be able to explicit the decision and in the consideration of the judge is expected that the judge can strive for drug abusers to be rehabilitated and can humanize humans.

Analysis of Judgment Conditions in Making a Decision for Rehabilitation of Persons of Criminal Actions Based on Narcotics ABUSE Decision Number: 302/PID.SUS/2022/PN. TJK and Decision Number 217/PID.SUS/2022/PN.KLA

Background. Problems in handling cases of criminal acts of narcotics abuse, namely the emergence of criminal disparities in terms of sentencing, such as in cases of criminal acts of narcotics abuse in Decision Number: 302/Pid.Sus/2022/PN. Tjk and Decision Number 217/Pid.Sus/2022/PN.Kla. Purpose. What are the factors that cause differences in judges' legal considerations in imposing decisions on rehabilitation of perpetrators of narcotics abuse based on Decision Number: 302/Pid.Sus/2022/PN. Tjk and Decision Number 217/Pid.Sus/2022/PN.Kla. What are the legal considerations of judges in making decisions on rehabilitation of perpetrators of narcotics abuse based on Decision Number: 302/Pid.Sus/2022/PN. Tjk and Decision Number 217/Pid.Sus/2022/PN.Kla. Method. The research was carried out using a normative juridical approach and an empirical approach. The data used in this study were secondary data obtained from library materials, and field research was carried out by observation and interviews (interviews). The data obtained were analyzed qualitatively and juridically and deductively concluded. Results. the factors that cause differences in judges' considerations in imposing decisions are sourced from the legal system and sentencing philosophy, sourced from judges, and sourced from defendants. The occurrence of disparity is also due to the factor that the Panel of Supreme Court Justices has different legal considerations and the principle of judging themselves so that there is a different application of Articles from Court Decisions of first level and appellate level.: 302/Pid.Sus/2022/PN. Tjk and Decision Number 217/Pid.Sus/2022/PN.Kla. Conclusion. Suggestions in this study are that the Panel of Judges in cases of criminal acts of narcotics abuse should minimize criminal disparities to prevent the development of a negative perspective of society towards the criminal system in judicial institutions.

The Legal Politics of Regulating Indigenous Peoples

Background. This research raises the issue of the existence of customary law communities in Indonesia, as well as the dynamics of customary law communities seen from the decision of the Constitutional Court. Purpose. This research is focused on analyzing two things, namely: First, what is the existence of indigenous peoples in Indonesia? Second, how is the legal politics of indigenous peoples through the decision of the Constitutional Court? This research uses a statute approach. Method. his research uses a statute approach. In addition, a case approach is also used to find out the ratio decidendi used by the Constitutional Court judges in deciding cases of judicial review of laws related to indigenous peoples. Results. The results of the study concluded: first, the existence of indigenous peoples in Indonesia has been accommodated in various spheres of legislation, both in the 1945 Constitution, Laws, Regional Regulations, Governor Decrees, and Regent Decrees. Second, the legal politics of indigenous peoples through the decision of the Constitutional Court strengthens the existence of indigenous peoples in Indonesia by providing various interpretations or explanations. Conclusion. this study are that the Panel of Judges in cases of criminal acts of narcotics abuse should minimize criminal disparities to prevent the development of a negative perspective of society towards the criminal system in judicial institutions.

Review of the Disparity of Judges' Decisions in Cases Narcotics Abuse

Criminal disparity is unequal sentencing which is dangerous in nature compared to without a clear justification. Judge's decision in juvenile criminal cases, in practice there is a disparity in sentencing. Therefore, the issue of sentencing is not only important for judges and the judicial process, but also for the legal process as a whole, especially in terms of law enforcement. Where in this case raises different criminal penalties among the children of the perpetrators of these crimes. Decision disparity cannot be separated from the judge's discretion to impose a sentence in a criminal case. a case. The approach to be used is a Juridical Sociological approach

Disparity In Criminal Convictions Against Perpetrators of The Crime of Circulating Alcoholic Beverages Without a Distribution Permit

Alcoholic Beverages Supervision and Control are set out in Regulation of President Number 74 of 2013 on Alcoholic Beverages Supervision and Control. For the region in this case Padang City, it is be regulated under Regional Regulation of Padang City Number 8 of 2012 on Alcoholic Beverages Supervision, Control, and Restriction. Based on such Regional Regulation whereas any distribution of alcoholic beverages should have a permit. In this study, 2 decisions were used, the offenders distributed alcoholic beverages without any circulation permit. The case has been decided under the Decisions Number 125/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Pdg and 245/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Pdg respectively. There is a decision disparity under the judges’ decisions. Research problems of this study included first, How is the Criminal Decision Disparity for Criminal Offenders of Alcoholic Beverages Distribution Without Circulation Permit under Decisions Number 125/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Pdg and Number 245/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Pdg? Second, How the judges consider to render decisions against criminal offenders of alcoholic beverages circulation without circulation permit under the Decisions Number 125/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Pdg and Number d245/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Pdg? This is a descriptive analytical study. This study used a normative juridical approach by conducting a legal analysis based on evidence (in-concreto). This study used secondary data. All secondary data comprise primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials collected from documentary study, then compiled and qualitatively analyzed, and presented in qualitative descriptive form. According to the study results, discussion, and analysis, this is concluded that first, Criminal Disparity in Decisions Number 125/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Pdg and Number 245/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Pdg is reflected from its similarity in article indictment rendered to the defendants within those two decisions and there is a criminal imprisonment difference rendered against each defendant. Second, the Judges’ consideration in rendering decisions against the criminal offenders of alcoholic beverages distribution without circulation permit under the Decisions Number 125/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Pdg and Number 245/Pid.Sus/2020/ PN.Pdg includes juridical considerations, namely in connection with article components indicted, witnesses’ information, the defendants’ evidence information, and experts’ information, as well as non-juridical considerations, namely related to the history and condition of the defendants.

Disparitas Pemidanaan Terhadap Pelaku Permufakatan Jahat Melakukan Tindak Pidana Narkotika dalam Prespektif Tujuan Hukum

Law enforcement against narcotics trafficking is certainly a significant element in efforts to eradicate narcotics crimes. So it is interesting to observe the extent to which the perpetrators who cooperated in committing criminal acts of buying and selling narcotics were arrested, prosecuted and tried. This study aims to answer the problem of accountability of each perpetrator who cooperates in committing a criminal act of buying and selling narcotics and regarding the occurrence of criminal disparities in the case of cooperating to commit narcotics crimes by analyzing the legal considerations of the panel of judges, as well as answering the problem of criminal disparities in cases of cooperating to commit narcotics crimes based on the perspective of legal objectives. This research uses normative legal research methods. The results showed that, in the case of criminal acts of buying and selling narcotics with the inclusion of responsibility of the perpetrators, it must be proven whether as a pleger (the main perpetrator), or a medepleger (a person who participates). Because if it is not proven in the trial, it will have an impact on the unaccountability of the perpetrator. So the situation does not reflect justice and legal certainty. the concrete form of criminal liability is the imposition of punishment by the Panel of Judges in the form of imprisonment and fines, defendants who commit the same crime or the level of seriousness that can be equalized, are still sentenced to varying or different crimes. So that disparity in conviction becomes a phenomenon of injustice if the judge does not clearly provide a strong reason for distinguishing the sentence for the defendant in the case of cooperating in the criminal act of buying and selling narcotics.Keywords: Disparity, Conviction, Narcotics, Inclusion

Forms and Developments of Narcotics Crime During the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Case Study of Court Decision

This study aims to examine and analyze the juridical and victimological correlations to the forms and developments of narcotics crime based on several Decisions of the District Court of Makassar during the Covid-19 pandemic. This study uses normative legal research with a statute approach and a case approach. The collected legal material is analyzed using qualitative analysis techniques to describe the problem and answer study purposes. The results show juridical and victimological correlations: Law No. 8 of 1981, Law No. 35 of 2009, and Rehabilitation. The forms and developments of narcotics crime during the Covid-19 pandemic can be identified based on the application of investigator testimony, victims of abusers, rehabilitation, participation, criminal disparity, special minimum punishment, undercover buying, and the best interest principle for children. Therefore, it is recommended that all law enforcement agencies not abuse their authority in implementing the juridical and victimological correlations. In this case, eradicating narcotics crimes in Indonesia can be more effective in the future.

Analisis Disparitas Putusan Hakim Dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Penggelapan Di Pengadilan Negeri Koto Baru

Criminal justice in the criminal justice system is a very central position that culminates in a judge's decision or verdict against the perpetrators of criminal acts, which in essence when studied with theoretical and practical studies in the judiciary often creates disparities in terms of punishment. Criminal disparity is the application of unequal punishment to the same crime or to crimes whose dangerous nature can be compared without a clear justification. The disparity that occurs is seen in Decision Number: 103/Pid.B/2018/PN.Kbr with the defendant Panji Alias ​​Saiful sentenced to prison for 10 (ten) months and Decision Number: 127/Pid.B/2018/PN.Kbr with the defendant Hendritos Calls Tos was sentenced to prison for 1 (one) year with each of them being proven to have committed the crime of "Embroidery". Factors that cause disparities in sentencing made by judges include the regulations in the Criminal Code (KUHP) that we adhere to, Judicial Powers, Characteristics of cases in similar crimes or have the same level of seriousness, Philosophy of punishment adopted by judges, different perceptions of justice by each judge, judges sometimes give different judgments about justice from one case to another. Thus, the factors that include influencing the disparity are the legal factor itself and the law enforcement factor.

Criminal Sanctions’ Reformulation in the Reclamation of the Mining Community

The norm of sanctions in Mining Law 2020 through irrational legislative policies can trigger criminal disparities and become a criminogenic factor. Reformulation efforts are needed in formulating sanctions regarding reclamation. This research aims to realign the purpose of criminalizing the post-mining reclamation obligation in the community mining category. The discussion is focused on the provisions reformulation for the community mining category's reclamation obligation. The problem will be researched using normative legal research methods. According to this research, the reclamation obligation sanction is an omission offense. The reclamation omission offense is both a passive law and a formal offense. Reformulation is based on the basic idea of ​​balancing the double-track system of criminal sanctions. Criminal sanctions become the last instrument if the sanctions are ignored. Action sanctions prioritize restoring post-mining environmental conditions. The criminal sanctions threat and fines in the community mining category must be lighter.

Kesetaraan Di Muka Hukum Bagi Penyandang Disabilitas (Analisis Putusan Nomor 28/Pid.B/Pn.Skh/2013)

The right on the same position on the law means that every citizens including disabilities persons have the same change to use their rights regulated by the institution. Indonesia government has signed Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in March 30, 2007 in New York. That even shows the strong intention of Indonesia country to respect, save, fulfill, and develop the disabilities persons’ right to fulfill the welfare of the disabilities persons. There is a case happened in Sukaharjo in the decision No. 18/Pid.B/PN.SKH/2013 about a crime defeated the disabilities person. This study employed library research design. The finding shows that the judges in the decision Nomor 28/Pid.B/PN.SKH state that the defendant convicted 8 years 6 months. The decision can be used as jurisprudence for other judges in examining the same case in order to avoid criminal disparity. In a further development, the criminal appeals to the High Court in Central Java, and in the High Court, Decision No. 244 / Pid 2013 / P.T.Smg actually strengthens the High Court Decision Sukoharjo with 10 years prison. Based on this decision it should increase the capacity of law enforcement agencies in the fulfillment of the right to a fair trial for persons with disabilities must be done. It aims to introduce the concept of disability to law enforcement officials, provide an understanding of human rights, especially the rights of persons with disabilities to law enforcement officials, as well as provide expertise (skills) to law enforcement authorities on the way and methods to fulfill the accessibility of persons with

The Disparity of Criminal Implementation in Case of Child Intercourse and Molestation As Seen From The Perspective of Decidendic Ratio Theory

This study aimed at examining the factors that cause the disparity of punishment in cases of sexual intercourse and molestation of minors, especially in Salatiga City, the impact of the occurrence of criminal disparities, and how the policy model for criminal acts of sexual intercourse and obscenity should be seen from the decidendi theory. The results of the study showed that the disparity in criminal penalties in criminal cases with children as victims is the existence of internal and external factors. Internal factors is in the form of a judge's own personality. While external factor is the legal factor or the legislation itself and the situation factor in the person who is in the perpetrator or defendant. The judge must be careful in seeing, digging, and observing the facts in the trial. Judges must pay attention to the attitude of prudence, avoiding carelessness, both formal and material to technical skills. The judge needs to give reasons or considerations following the values of truth and justice (ratio decidendi). The judge must also use common sense or rational thinking by paying attention to the previous judge's decisions to avoid striking disparity in sentencing. Currently, the judiciary in Indonesia, especially in the Salatiga District Court, still uses the method of imposing sentences based on trial examinations only. This causes court decisions issued by judges to have differences between one decision and another, which is called criminal disparity. The research method used by the researcher was a juridical-normative research method equipped with an in-depth case approach using the ratio decidendi theory. The technique of collecting legal materials used was a literature study. The legal material analysis technique used was deductive data analysis.

DISPARITAS PENJATUHAN PIDANA PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA NARKOTIKA (Analisis Putusan Nomor: 898/Pid.Sus/2020/PN. Pdg Dan Putusan Nomor: 940/Pid.Sus /2020/PN. Pd

The judge's consideration is one of the most important aspects in determining the realization of the value of a judge's decision that contains justice, so that maximum and balanced judge considerations are obtained at the level of theory and legal facts.The results of the research on "the disparity of criminal penalties against narcotics criminals (decision analysis number: 898/pid.sus/2020/pn. pdg and decision number: 940/pid.sus /2020/pn. pdg)" which aims to answer the problem -problems as follows: (1) why there is a disparity in the punishment of narcotics criminals in the two decisions, (2) what are the factors that cause criminal disparities in the two decisions? This research is a descriptive analytical research. The approach used in this research is a normative juridical approach. The data used in this research is secondary data. All data and materials obtained from the research results are compiled and analyzed qualitatively and presented in a qualitative descriptive form. Based on the results of the discussion and analysis, it can be concluded that firstly, the disparity in sentencing criminals against narcotics criminals in the two decisions occurred because in the sentencing of the crime the judge saw from the evidence and evidence in the two decisions, so that in the sentencing of criminal offenses in the two decisions there was a disparity in the imposition of criminal penalties. different between the two decisions. The two factors that cause criminal disparities in the two decisions are that the judge in the decision considers mitigating and aggravating factors that are individual, different between one perpetrator and another (criminal individualization). The judge's considerations in imposing a sentence on the perpetrators of narcotics crimes are based on various things, namely: originating within the judge, originating from the law itself and the characteristics of the case in question and the severity of narcotic evidence.

Criminal Disparity in Law Enforcement to the Performers of Judi Togel in Simalungun Court State

Gambling cases, especially lottery gambling, are a type of gambling that is rife in society. Courts are the last bastion for attendance seekers. Justice is not merely a place to punish but to get justice. However, the fact is that there are disparities in court decisions on the same case, namely lottery gambling at the Simalungun District Court. As for the problem is: whyCriminal disparities occur in terms of law enforcement against lottery gambling perpetrators at the Simalungun District Court and what efforts that can be made so that there is no disparity in decisions in lottery gambling cases. The research used is juridical legal research, research on laws whose position is the norm, namely the provisions of gambling crimes as regulated in the Criminal Code. Where the imposition of crimes against the same article is inconsistent, there are even disparities.

DISPARITAS PUTUSAN PENGADILAN MENGENAI PERKARA KORUPSI BIAYA PEMUNGUTAN PAJAK BUMI DAN BANGUNAN DIHUBUNGKAN DENGAN PRAKTEK PENEGAKAN HUKUM


 The cause of disparities in punishment in the settlement of criminal cases is the independence of judges in carrying out their profession. The existing laws do not regulate or limit the minimum sentence imposed upon the accused. Based on the basic experience, the consideration of the defendant's condition includes the individual, the behavior of the community, the financial situation and social status. The disparity in court decisions in cases of corruption can lie on legal paradigm by formulating the contents of legislation properly, avoiding mistakes in interpreting the law, using reasoning both deductively and inductively and discovering legal values ​​that live in the society. Criminal disparities cannot be eliminated by themselves. Therefore, there must be benchmarks with transparency in the imposition of criminal sanctions in accordance with the principles of criminal procedural law.
 Keywords: Disparity, Crime of Corruption, Law Enforcement.

Criminal Disparities in the Judiciary in Tasikmalaya City (Study of Decision No. 113/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Tsm and No. 114/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Tsm)

Different conviction or disparity of sentencing in judges discretionary form at imposing of judgment for making a decision. This case impacts disappointment for the general public and especially for conviction. This research purposes to know the rule of sentencing disparity on criminal law in Indonesia. Furthermore, some factor sentencing disparity happened in the article No. 113/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Tsm and article No. 114/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Tsm in narcotic crime case at Tasikmalaya. This research uses a normative juridical method done through literature study that analyzes secondary data in the form of laws and regulation, legal document, the result of research, assessment of result and others reference through interview. This study's results are: 1) The rule of disparity of sentencing criminal procedural law in Indonesia list in article 197 KUHP, judges must consider determining strafmaat for defendant through material evidence at trial to support the conclusion considerate of judges. There is a limit of judges to deciding cases that regulate in article 183 KUHAP. 2) Factor of sentencing disparity in the article No. 113/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Tsm and article No. 114/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Tsm in narcotic crime case, there is other evidence from each defendant that makes the basis of consideration is different. However, the defendant's role in committing a crime was some in the article No. 35 Tahun 2009 about Narcotic regarding provisions of the crime. The researcher suggests that when judges decide the matter that contained disparity of sentencing, accordingly, it must rely on objective consideration.Keywords: Disparity of Sentencing, Conviction, Narcotic.

Applying the Straftoemetingsleiddraad in a Corruption Case in Indonesia

Criminal Disparity in a corruption case is unacceptable in philosophical reasoning, sociologically, or even from the perspective of legal objectives, which in theory and factual facts lead to judicial caprise and the presumption of judicial corruption in the verdict, where it will adversely affect the fair justice of the convicted or for the Indonesian people as victims of corruption. Criminal Law gives alternative in order to give pressure the criminal disparity through straftoemetingsleiddraad or guidance of sentencing of the judges in prosecuting without violating the principle of freedom of judges, either through the Indonesian Supreme Court Regulations for now as ius constitutum, or through the legislation process of the Anti-Corruption Act for the future as ius constituendium.

DISPARITAS PUTUSAN DALAM PERKARA NARKOTIKA DI PENGADILAN NEGERI JAKARTA SELATAN (Studi Kasus Perkara No. 221/PIDSUS/2018/PN.JKT.SEL. Dengan Perkara No. 266/PIDSUS/2018/PN.JKT.SEL.)

This study aims to determine the Basis of Judges' Judgments in Deciding criminal decisions that cause disparity in decisions in Narcotics criminal acts and to find out steps that can be taken to reduce the occurrence of criminal disparities in narcotics cases in the South Jakarta District Court. This study uses the Juridical normatife approach. The data collection technique in this study was library research and interviews and then analyzed the court decisions of the South Jakarta District Court relating to Juridical Disparity Review of Narcotics Decisions. The results of this study indicate that: 1. Basic consideration of judges in dropping criminal narcotics decisions on the basis of juridical considerations and non-judicial considerations. 2. Steps to reduce the occurrence of criminal disparities in narcotics cases carried out by external and internal efforts.

Disparities Criminal Case Against Judge's Decision In Crime Of Narcotics Abuse Viewed From The Purpose Of Criminal Law

Criminalization of the criminal case of narcotics abuse by the judges are very diverse. The aim of research to find out and analyze why the disparity in the criminal verdict against narcotics abuse criminal case, how the implementation of the basic objective of sentencing disparity in the criminal verdict against narcotics abuse criminal case. Methods are juridical sociological approach using primary data from interviews with relevant parties associated secondary data of materials applicable laws or regulations. The results of the study, 1) criminal disparity in criminal narcotics abuse, cause by the impact of the crime of narcotics abuses, committing criminal background narcotic abuse, the persuasive principle of Presedent, The existence of freedom and independence of the judge in the 1945 Constitution, the laws existing judicial power, the theory of dissenting opinions, and the doctrine of res judicate hebetur pro veritate. 2) Implementation of the objective of sentencing in criminal disparity criminal case of narcotics abuse, contained in the formulation of a special minimum punishment in Act No. 35 of 2009, is to meet the demands of society and the effectiveness of the influence of general prevention. of punishment meted out, the final attempt of criminal law and serves as a special precaution, prevention against the perpetrators to obtain deterrence and rehabilitation for himself.Keywords: Narcotics abuse; Criminal Disparities; Objective Punishment.�