Juridical Message in the Shadow of the Carceral: Prison Discipline, Additional Days and the Feasibility of Penal Communication

Juridical and carceral scholarship seldom interact. As a result, the visible and less visible intersections and gaps between the two penal logics and discourses are often overlooked. The paper argues for better understanding of juridical power, and how it may cut through the boundaries of juridical/carceral separation. As a case study, the paper problematises the disciplinary punishment of imposing ‘additional days’ of prison time (AD) for prison rules violations, through the lenses of communicative sentencing theory. The paper argues that AD may undermine the juridical communicative ideal as it may cause penal censure to lose credibility, trivialise the value of prison time, and harm the feasibility of penal communication by disconnecting imprisonment from the offence of conviction. Conclusions for socio-legal and penal theory and policy are discussed.

Sentencing Guidelines in American Courts: A Forty-Year Retrospective

This article updates the author’s previous survey of guidelines systems, published in this journal in 1999, and reviews what these reforms have and have not accomplished. Sentencing guidelines developed by an independent sentencing commission are currently being used in 17 states, the federal courts, and the District of Columbia. The majority of these systems have also replaced parole release discretion with defined good-time reductions for compliance with prison disciplinary rules and assigned prison programming, and this combination of sentencing and parole reform has been endorsed by the American Bar Association and the American Law Institute. The article summarizes and critiques the many variations among guidelines systems. Some relate to scope -- which crimes and sentencing issues are regulated; others concern design details – how the system actually works. The article identifies five central features of a well-designed guidelines system: a permanent, balanced, independent, and adequately funded sentencing commission; typical-case presumptive sentences and departure criteria; a hybrid sentencing theory that recognizes and harmonizes retributive and crime control purposes; balance between the competing benefits of rules and discretion; and sentence recommendations informed by resource and demographic impact assessments. Balance is also needed in terms of commission composition, and between the influence of the commission, the legislature, and case-level actors. But even if all of these features cannot be adopted, some form of structured sentencing is essential; completely discretionary sentencing is unacceptable. And in the past four decades, no competing structured sentencing model of comparable scope has been adopted or even seriously proposed.

Retributivism and Totality Can Bulk Discounts for Multiple Offending Fit the Crime?

This chapter examines how multiple offenders seem to pose a problem for broadly retributive principles of sentencing, focusing on the proper place and exercise of discretion to show why such problems are only apparent. It begins with a discussion of the issue of multiple offending and the discretion it seems to give sentencers as well as the bulk-discount principle that appears to guide decisions. It then considers two ways in which bulk discounts may appear to conflict with retributive sentencing theory, the fittingness problem and the selection problem. It also analyzes the key guiding thought within retributive approaches to criminal justice and distinguishes between two types of retributivism, moralistic and legalistic. The chapter concludes with the argument that retributivism is compatible with common approaches to multiple-offense sentencing.

PENJARA TERHADAP DOKTER DALAM PERSPEKTIF MENGIKATNYA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI DAN PEMIDANAAN INTEGRATIF

ABSTRAKKekuatan mengikat putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi bersifat final dan mengikat. Namun Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 4/PUU-V/2007 tidak ditaati oleh Putusan Nomor 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi telah menganulir ancaman pidana penjara dalam Pasal 75 ayat (1), Pasal 76, dan Pasal 79 Undang-Undang Nomor 29 Tahun 2004 tentang Praktik Kedokteran. Putusan Mahkamah Agung tetap menjatuhkan pidana penjara terhadap dokter yang melanggar pasal tersebut. Kondisi ini menimbulkan ketidaksesuaian antara kekuatan mengikat putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi dan tujuan penjatuhan pidana yang integratif berdasarkan Pancasila. Masalah dalam tulisan ini adalah bagaimanakah implikasi Putusan Nomor 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 dikaitkan dengan kekuatan mengikat Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi? Dan bagaimanakah implikasi penjatuhan pidana penjara bagi dokter yang tercantum dalam Putusan Nomor 1110 K/ Pid.Sus/2012 dikaitkan dengan teori tujuan pemidanaan integratif? Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam tulisan ini adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan kasus. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki sifat erga ormes sehingga harus diikuti oleh Mahkamah Agung. Pidana penjara terhadap dokter yang tidak menggunakan izin praktik tidak dapat mencapai tujuan pemidanaan integratif. Akibatnya pelayanan kesehatan bagi masyarakat tidak terlayani, dan merugikan profesi dokter. Kesimpulannya adalah putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tidak mempunyai kekuatan mengikat sehingga menjadi tidak efektif dan tujuan pemidanaan integratif berdasarkan Pancasila tidak tercapai.Kata kunci: pidana penjara, kekuatan putusan, tujuan pemidanaan integratif.ABSTRACTThe binding force of the Constitutional Court ruling is final. However, the Supreme Court Decision Number 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 does not abide by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 4/PUU-V/2007. The Constitutional Court Decision has annulled the imprisonment penalties in Article 75 paragraph (1), Article 76, Article 79 of Law Number 29 of 2004 concerning Medical Practices. The Supreme Court in its decision imposed the sanction of imprisonment on the doctors violating the aforementioned articles. This condition lead to such a discrepancy between the final and binding decision of the Constitutional Court and the integrated purposes of sentencing under Pancasila. Formulation of the problems in this analysis meets some points on how the implication of the Supreme Court Decision Number 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 regarding the binding force of the Constitutional Court Decision; and how the implication of the imposition of imprisonment sanction for a list of doctors stated in the Supreme Court Decision Number 1110 K/Pid.Sus/2012 in terms of integrated objective of sentencing theory. The research method is a normative juridical by case-based approach. The nature of the decision of the Constitutional Court is erga omnes, that obliges the Supreme Court to act upon. The sanction of imprisonment against the doctors with no consent practices cannot reach the integrated purpose of sentencing. As a consequence, the health services to communities are abandoned and this bring negative impacts on medical profession. To be brief, the decision of the Constitutional Court is considered futile with no binding force, accordingly the integrated purpose of sentencing under Pancasila could not be achieved.Keywords: imprisonment, binding force of ruling, integrated purpose of sentencing.