KEADILAN BAGI PENYALAHGUNA NARKOTIKA DI INDONESIA

This article presents the perceptions of Indonesian Judges in sentencing minor drug offenders. The judge holds a central role in the sentencing process, and because of the judicial discretion they can use it is essential to understand how judges come to their sentencing decisions. To develop an understanding of how judges perceive their actions in decision-making and sentencing of drug users, a total of 31 participants were interviewed. The data demonstrated that justice is presented as conditional, depending on various influencing factors that are primarily, though not entirely, one of tension and contradiction. One of the factors that influence the judge's decision is politics and the legal apparatus. This article contributes to the perception of judges who are influenced by juridical and sociological factors.

Contribution of Lifestyle Related Shaming in Drug Relapse Management in Indonesia

In the statistical calculation of the National Narcotics Board of the Republic of Indonesia or so called BNN, there were 70% of drug offenders with the status of drug relapse in 2019 reached (BNN: 2019). Such condition illustrates that the social rehabilitation mechanism for drug offenders in Indonesia still has the opportunity to present shameless people. Therefore, this study is intended to observe the significance of Lifestyle Related Shaming as an effort to reduce the number of drug relapses in Indonesia. Lifestyle Related Shaming is supported by 3 (three) macro theories, namely reintegrative shaming theory proposed by John Braithwaite, desistance theory proposed by Farral and routine activity theory proposed by Hiddlenlang The literature review method was applied here through the utilization and effort to develop an existing theory (grounded theory) by presenting certain concepts (variables) in accordance with the affordability of study data. In addition to qualitative approach, this research also performed a quantitative approach through survey method among respondents who experienced drugs relapse in Indonesia as well as in-depth interviews with drug relapse residents with various backgrounds and educational levels at the Center for Drug Rehabilitation of the Republic of Indonesia at Lido Bogor. It is expected that this study may provide a broad understanding to the government to prepare the best program for solving the drug relapse phenomenon, especially drug abuse in Indonesia. For the science, this study is expected to be a basis for the implementation of shaming in Indonesia. Furthermore, this study is also expected to be able to provide input in the process of drug relapse management in Indonesia, especially in an effort to prevent residents from falling into a shameless condition.

Moral Foundations Theory and Attitudes Towards the Punishment and Criminalisation of Drug Offenders

<p>Research on punitive attitudes has generally found some level of consensus on the relative seriousness of different offence types. However, how to approach the issue of drug offending is often a heavily debated issue, with some portions of society supporting harsh punishments for drug offenders, and others arguing for no sanctions at all. The current study, using both a student and general population sample, aimed to identify the underlying moral reasons behind these attitudes. Participants completed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, a scale measuring the factors that influence a person’s moral judgment, as well as numerous other scales that measured their punishment responses towards a variety of drug, harm, and ‘taboo’ sexual offences and practices. The endorsement of binding moral foundations, those relating to group-based moral concerns, was found to be a predictor of increased overall levels of punitiveness, while the endorsement of the foundation of purity was found to predict punitive attitudes towards drug offences and ‘taboo’ sexual practices, but not harm offences. Additionally, there were significant links between participants’ levels of moral outrage, their preference for punishment, and their support for the criminalisation of the various offences. The results of this study suggest that punishment responses towards both drug offences and ‘taboo’ sexual practices rely on a similar moral reasoning process, one that relies on perceptions of impurity to inform the wrongfulness of an offence.</p>

Moral Foundations Theory and Attitudes Towards the Punishment and Criminalisation of Drug Offenders

<p>Research on punitive attitudes has generally found some level of consensus on the relative seriousness of different offence types. However, how to approach the issue of drug offending is often a heavily debated issue, with some portions of society supporting harsh punishments for drug offenders, and others arguing for no sanctions at all. The current study, using both a student and general population sample, aimed to identify the underlying moral reasons behind these attitudes. Participants completed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, a scale measuring the factors that influence a person’s moral judgment, as well as numerous other scales that measured their punishment responses towards a variety of drug, harm, and ‘taboo’ sexual offences and practices. The endorsement of binding moral foundations, those relating to group-based moral concerns, was found to be a predictor of increased overall levels of punitiveness, while the endorsement of the foundation of purity was found to predict punitive attitudes towards drug offences and ‘taboo’ sexual practices, but not harm offences. Additionally, there were significant links between participants’ levels of moral outrage, their preference for punishment, and their support for the criminalisation of the various offences. The results of this study suggest that punishment responses towards both drug offences and ‘taboo’ sexual practices rely on a similar moral reasoning process, one that relies on perceptions of impurity to inform the wrongfulness of an offence.</p>

Contribution of Lifestyle Related Shaming in Drug Relapse Management in Indonesia

In the statistical calculation of the National Narcotics Board of the Republic of Indonesia or so called BNN, there were 70% of drug offenders with the status of drug relapse in 2019 reached (BNN: 2019). Such condition illustrates that the social rehabilitation mechanism for drug offenders in Indonesia still has the opportunity to present shameless people. Therefore, this study is intended to observe the significance of Lifestyle Related Shaming as an effort to reduce the number of drug relapses in Indonesia. Lifestyle Related Shaming is supported by 3 (three) macro theories, namely reintegrative shaming theory proposed by John Braithwaite, desistance theory proposed by Farral and routine activity theory proposed by Hiddlenlang The literature review method was applied here through the utilization and effort to develop an existing theory (grounded theory) by presenting certain concepts (variables) in accordance with the affordability of study data. In addition to qualitative approach, this research also performed a quantitative approach through survey method among respondents who experienced drugs relapse in Indonesia as well as in-depth interviews with drug relapse residents with various backgrounds and educational levels at the Center for Drug Rehabilitation of the Republic of Indonesia at Lido Bogor. It is expected that this study may provide a broad understanding to the government to prepare the best program for solving the drug relapse phenomenon, especially drug abuse in Indonesia. For the science, this study is expected to be a basis for the implementation of shaming in Indonesia. Furthermore, this study is also expected to be able to provide input in the process of drug relapse management in Indonesia, especially in an effort to prevent residents from falling into a shameless condition.

Sentencing Federal Drug Offenders

The Drug War ushered in harsh sentencing practices in the United States. The severity in penalties has been particularly salient in the federal criminal justice system. Increased statutory penalties and U.S. Sentencing Commission guidelines led to drug users and traffickers serving longer periods of incarceration. As a result, the federal correctional system is overburdened. A noticeable change in attitude is evident. Congress has offered leniency for certain first-time drug offenders in the form of a statutory safety valve. While a progressive step, the safety valve applies to relatively few individuals. Importantly, federal judges have some discretion to reject what they might consider to be overly lengthy sentencing mandates. This Article provides an empirical study of sentencing statistics for drug offences. The sample derives from the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s fiscal year 2019 dataset of over 20,000 cases sentenced for drug crimes. Results show that judges employed various mechanisms to reduce statutory- and guidelines-based penalties. Strategies by judges include avoiding mandatory minimums (using the safety valve and otherwise), giving greater point reductions than permitted, and rejecting Commission policies. Over 60% of sentences were below the guidelines’ minimum recommendations. The consequences are beneficial in alleviating strain on the federal prison population, but create inconsistency in sentencing practices. A qualitative component supplements the quantitative. Judges, when issuing their statement of reasons for the sentence, may include textual comments. These comments provide valuable contextual information in how judges articulate their concerns with sanctions for drug offenders. Overall results present important policy considerations.

Sentencing to Drug Court

Drug courts are frequently touted as an alternative sentencing option for low-level drug offenders and were even promoted by U.S. presidential candidates in 2020. While national organizations tout that “Drug Courts Work,” there are many who question their efficacy. Favorable statistics and success stories depend on close fidelity to the prescribed models from the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. With rapid adoption of drug courts nationwide, and little oversight of their fidelity to the drug court model, some judges may operate drug courts in ways that can harm, rather than help, an increasing number of participants. Improper drug court admissions and heavy use of jail sanctioning lead to worse outcomes for participants—and to suspicion toward drug courts among the criminal justice reform movement of which drug courts aim to be a part. While the drug court model has evolved as a treatment model for offenders with high criminogenic risk and high treatment need, some judges either disregard or are unaware of this shift. Participants are supervised more closely and are often given higher treatment dosages than they require to address their substance use disorder. Low-level offenders may end up with accrued jail time through their drug court participation that exceeds the amount they would have received had they simply been sentenced to a jail term at the outset of their plea. Increased oversight of drug courts, combined with required education for judges and court staff, will lead to a better understanding of the drug court model. By identifying the proper target population, focusing on treatment, and reducing or eliminating jail sanctions, drug courts will align with the national model, improve outcomes, and reduce both jail time and recidivism of their participants. This Article outlines the evolution of the drug court model and shows that lack of understanding of that evolution leads to harsher sentencing for low-level drug offenders.

Sentencing Drug Offenders Justly While Reducing Mass Incarceration

In my paper, I discuss what I believe is the most effective approach to sentencing drug defendants. I start with the proposition that in many, if not most cases, incarcerating drug offenders does more harm than good. Imprisonment contributes to mass incarceration, does not deter unlawful drug activity and has an adverse racial impact. Thus, if a judge can reasonably avoid imposing a prison sentence, he or she should do so. Fortunately, this is the judge’s duty under the law. 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) requires a judge to impose a sentence that is “sufficient but not greater than necessary…” or, in other words, the least restrictive reasonable sentence. Thus, in every case, the judge must first consider whether a non-incarcerative sentence is sufficient. It often will be. In determining the appropriate sentence, a judge should focus on what the offender did and why and what he or she will likely do in the future and pay less attention to such factors as drug type and drug weight. Sometimes, a mandatory minimum sentence will apply and prevent a judge from imposing a fair sentence, but that is outside the judge’s control. Fortunately, because of Booker and its progeny, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines do not pose a similar problem. The judge, of course, must calculate and consider the applicable guideline but in many cases the guideline will be irrelevant to a just sentence. This is so because the guidelines are excessively oriented toward prison sentences and thus frequently conflict with the sufficient but not greater than necessary command of §3553(a). In my paper, I provide numerous examples of sentences that I have imposed and explanations of those sentences to illustrate this approach.

Public Support for Using “Second Chance” Mechanisms to Reconsider Long-Term Prison Sentences for Drug Crimes

Using a national sample of U.S. adults (N = 371), this study experimentally examines (1) public support for the use of strategies that provide early release (i.e., “second chance” mechanisms) to individuals serving long-term prison sentences for drug crimes; and (2) how levels of support, and reasons for support, may vary depending on the type of drug-related offense. Results show moderate levels of support for using second chance mechanisms, both generally and in relation to specific strategies commonly available across jurisdictions, for a range of drug offenders. Yet participants showed significantly more support for using presumptive parole, elimination of parole revocations for technical violations, second-look sentencing, and compassionate release in the cases of those incarcerated long term for serious trafficking of marijuana, as compared to serious trafficking of serious drugs. Data also suggest that the public finds a range of factors—including the original sentence being extreme by international standards, extreme due to racially biased practices, out of step with current sentencing values/practices, too costly, and continuing to incarcerate someone unlikely to be a public safety threat—as at least moderately important to their support for the use of second chance mechanisms across drug crimes, and the importance of these factors to that support does not appear to differ significantly based on the type of drug offense. The importance of these results for policy making and utilization are discussed, as well as implications for reducing our historical reliance on drug-related incarceration.