IMPLEMENTASI HUKUM DALAM MENANGGULANGI DELIK PROSTITUSI ONLINE MENGGUNAKAN PASAL 296 KUHP

Abstract

The disparity in sentencing is something that naturally occurs in a decision. The general
understanding of disparity is that there is a wide range of dif erences in the sentencing of criminals in
cases of the same type or level of seriousness. Disparity is divided into two, namely disparity that can
be accounted for and also disparity that cannot be accounted for. There is no concrete definition
regarding the meaning of the disparity. To find and find out whether there are disparities in a decision,
numerical punishment guidelines are needed using a consistency of outcomes approach. In the
sentencing guidelines there are variables that have dif erent weights and will then be included in the
sentencing table so that this is very helpful for judges in imposing criminal penalties. In writing this
thesis, the researcher uses 2 (two) decisions which are considered to have sentencing disparities. The
researcher uses the decision No.Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Smn and the decision No.445/Pid.Sus/2020/PN.Pal.
in the decision of the Sleman District Court, the defendant was sentenced to prison for 4 (four) months.
Meanwhile, in the Palu District Court's decision, the defendant was sentenced to 2 years and 3 months
in prison. It is clear that there is a disparity, but it cannot be judged whether this is a disparity that can
be accounted for or not. The 2 (two) decisions are also reviewed with the ITE Law and the Criminal
Code.