This paper explores the perceptions of Indonesian Judges in sentencing minor drug offenders. The Judge holds a central role in the administration of justice and, because of the significance of judicial discretion, it is essential to understand how judges come to their sentencing decisions. To develop an understanding of what judges are trying to achieve when sentencing minor drug offenders, a total of 31 judges were interviewed: 28 participants came from District Courts in Urban and Rural jurisdictions in Indonesia (17 from Urban Courts and 11 from Rural Courts) and three were Supreme Court judges. The findings highlight that the process of justice involves not merely the application of the rule of the law or relevant legal codes; rather, how the judiciary balance and interpret the law is a central part of court sentencing practice.
The underlying legitimacy issue that underlies sentences related to issues of drug use remains unexplored. It is this relationship between legitimacy and Indonesian judges' accountability when sentencing that the writer will see further in this field. This paper presents judicial activism, and the perceived public legitimacy when sentencing minor drug offenders. To get an insight into the judicial aim of sentencing minor drug offenders, 31 judges were qualitatively interviewed. It drew the import of the findings of judicial activism and public legitimacy to conclude the work. This report introduces the finding in which judicial activism that was influenced by Islamic culture goes together, that Islamic more sympathetic, instead of the central government more punitive, the ways in which the Indonesian judge use that Islamic culture to support the rehabilitative problem-solving sentences. This report discusses a direct accountability mechanism that may be similar to political accountability in the Anglo-Saxon legal scheme.
In this paper, I present a qualitative method used in researching the judiciary. This article highlights the importance of employing a number of quality assurance steps and procedures to enhance the validity and reliability of the findings. I argue that to increase safety and reduce risk, procedural risk-assessment of the study project can be useful to deal with the real time practical difficulties that emerged from the fieldwork. To develop an understanding of what judges are trying to achieve when sentencing minor drug offenders, a total of thirty-one Indonesian judges were semi-structurally interviewed. The findings highlight that my methodology evolved by working in the field. When it was clear that not all participants were willing to be recorded, I decided to take notes. Also, I decided to conduct a kind of focus group by having two judges in the room concurrently. In this regard, I captured the participant's experience without being too intrusive. This paper contributes to the study of the method. The way in which I employed a number of quality assurance steps and procedures to enhance the validity and reliability of the findings. This fastidiousness and vigilance enhance confidence that this study's findings reflect closely the reality of drug sentencing in the courts studied over the period of fieldwork.
Although there have been a number of recent developments in criminal justice research on the topic of structural inequality sentencing, much work is needed to explore the judicial perspective. Researchers use this paper illustrates how a recent study used qualitative semi-structure interviews to study current judicial perspectives on sentencing of minor drug offenders in Indonesia. This paper reports a recent study of judicial perspectives when sentencing minor drug offenders in Indonesia. Firstly, it reviews existing sentencing option and recent development that motivated me to explore the issues of justice among Indonesian Judges. Secondly, it reports the procedures and method used in the recent study. Thirdly, it reports the appropriateness of the methodology chosen, and how it may influence the finding of the study. Finally, it reports the judicial perception on structural inequality.
This paper presents the findings to improve public administration services. For the first time, the findings presented in this paper contribute to knowledge and to addressing problems, as well as to provide direct and tangible benefits to the service of the wider community. The research method presented in this paper is a qualitative study involving interviews with participants who are District Court Judges and observations in two selected courts. The findings presented in this paper will have an impact on improving services administration in the public sector in Indonesia.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.