Criminal Sentencing in Indonesia: Disparity, Disproportionality and Biases

© 2020 Rifqi SjariefThis thesis assesses 1,100 Indonesian criminal justice decisions on theft and embezzlement-related offences as well as corruption in four first instance courts (2011-2015, but excluding 2013) to better understand sentencing practices in that country. Using a socio-legal methodology, it investigates the consistency and proportionality, as well as fairness (unbiased) of the sentencing practice, particular between offenders of different socio-economic backgrounds as well as the legal and extra-legal factors that contribute to sentencing outcomes. This thesis finds unwarranted disparity and disproportionality in sentencing practices in Indonesia, particularly in cases involving medium and large losses. Further, while offenders charged with corruption received overall relatively longer imprisonment sentences than offenders charged with theft and embezzlement-related offences in the same categories of loss, when the differences in the offences’ minimum and maximum penalties – as the expression of an offence’s seriousness – are put into the equation, corruptors are indeed punished disproportionally more lenient compared to thieves and fraudsters. This is because the minimum and maximum imprisonment sentences for corruption are much longer then for theft and embezzlement-related offences. I also find that many law enforcers and judges have suffer from class-bias or are involved in corruption, which leads them to be lenient in charging and sentencing corruption offenders from middle and upper socio-economic backgrounds. They did so, including, by deliberately misinterpreted provisions in the Anti-corruption Law and Supreme Court guidance. Judges’ perspective of different offences seriousness between theft-related offences and corruption (with the first-mentioned offences are generally seen as more concerning to the public as the later one) also influence the disproportionality of sentences between the two types of offences. This thesis also shows that while judges do consider legal factors in sentencing, particularly the type of offence committed and the amount of loss caused, they tend to be overly influenced by a desire to avoid appeal by prosecutors (which would increase their workload and prolong the time that offenders have to spend behind bars due to the practice common of pretrial detention and, to a lesser extent, the long appeal process). This often leads judges to follow the prosecutor’s sentencing recommendations, particularly in theft and embezzlement related offences. Worse, to avoid appeal, judges imposed more severe sentence than what is permissible on minor theft and embezzlement offenders simply because the prosecutor mischarged them by non-minor offences provisions (that demand longer prison terms). In other words, how the case is processed by the investigator and prosecutors significantly shapes sentencing outcomes. The Supreme Court’s failure to provide sufficient sentencing guidelines and, more importantly, consistent decisions, including enforcing the existing guidelines, also contributes to these problems. In summary, this thesis empirically confirms the public perception of class-bias and corruption in the Indonesian criminal justice and, further, illustrates how poor law enforcement, case management and weaknesses in the Supreme Court distort sentencing