Assessing the Implementation and Impact of Corruption Sentencing Guidelines in Indonesia: Comparative Perspectives from the United States, England, and Wales
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls2026.17.2.4Keywords:
Sentencing guidelines of Indonesia, legal reform, sentencing disparity, proportionality, corruption crimesAbstract
The sentencing guidelines established by Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020 represent a strategic component within Indonesia's penal system. These guidelines aim to promote proportionality, reduce disparity, minimize judicial subjectivity, and enhance transparency and accountability in sentencing. As the first regulation specifically addressing sentencing guidelines for corruption offenses, it raises questions about its necessity and implementation in Indonesia. Evaluating the application of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020 is crucial to determine whether its primary objectives align with the outcomes achieved. This research employs a normative juridical method with a conceptual, statutory, case, and comparative approach in its analysis. The novelty of this study lies in its discussion of the newly implemented sentencing guidelines in Indonesia, accompanied by an analysis of 17 decisions in corruption crime cases following the enactment of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020. The findings indicate that Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020 has had a positive impact on promoting proportionality, enhancing consistency, and increasing transparency and accountability in judicial decision-making processes. However, post-enactment, there remain several rulings that have not fully adhered to these guidelines. Comparative studies with United States, England, and Wales reveal the need for improvements in these sentencing guidelines to establish a more effective, proportional, and equitable penal system.
References
Aditama, K. P. S., & Yudiantara, I. G. N. N. K. (2023). Disparitas dalam penjatuhan hukum pidana terhadap terdakwa di Indonesia. Jurnal Kertha Negara, 11(12), 1369–1383.
Adji, O. S. (1980). Hukum-hakim pidana. Erlangga.
Adonara, F. F. (2016). Prinsip kebebasan hakim dalam memutus perkara sebagai amanat konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 12(2), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1222
Akbari, A. R., Saputro, A. A., & Marbun, A. N. (2017). Memaknai dan mengukur disparitas: Studi terhadap praktik pemidanaan pada tindak pidana korupsi. Badan Penerbit Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia-Masyarakat Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia-USAID.
Anderson, J. M., Kling, J. R., & Stith, K. (1999). Measuring interjudge sentencing disparity: Before and after the federal sentencing guidelines. The Journal of Law and Economics, 42(1), 271–308. https://doi.org/10.1086/467426
Arief, B. N. (2011). Tujuan dan pedoman pemidanaan (Perspektif pembaharuan dan perbandingan hukum pidana). Pustaka Magister.
Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional. (2015). Draft naskah akademik rancangan undang-undang tentang kitab undang-undang hukum pidana (KUHP). Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional Kementerian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Republik Indonesia.
Berggren, N., & Gutmann, J. (2020). Securing personal freedom through institutions: The role of electoral democracy and judicial independence. European Journal of Law and Economics, 49(2), 165–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-020-09643-9
Bradley-Engen, M. S., Damphousse, K. R., & Smith, B. L. (2009). Punishing terrorists: A reexamination of U.S. Federal sentencing in the post guidelines era. International Criminal Justice Review, 19(4), 433–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567709348357
Chanenson, S. L., & Arty, K. (2022). Unfinished innovation: American sentencing guidelines. In E. Jeglic & C. Calkins (Eds.), Handbook of issues in criminal justice reform in the United States (pp. 113–126). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77565-0_7
Cohen, A., & Yang, C. S. (2019). Judicial politics and sentencing decisions. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11(1), 160–191. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170329
Cole, K., Rydberg, J., & Cassidy, M. (2021). Going off the grid: Assessing sentencing departures for individuals convicted of sexual offenses. Crime & Delinquency, 67(11), 1676–1705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128720977451
Craun, S. W., & Silver, J. (2023). 365 days > 366 days: The (in) ability to earn good time credit during the time of COVID-19. The Prison Journal, 103(6), 749–768. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00328855231208010
Djawari, M. N. (2019). Pemberlakukan pidana badan di provinsi naggroe aceh drussalam berdasarkan pandangan tujuan pemidanaan dalam hukum pidana Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, 2(1), 1–20.
Downward, P., Rasciute, S., & Kumar, H. (2020). Health, subjective financial situation and well-being: A longitudinal observational study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01456-3
Farrell, A. (2004). Measuring judicial and prosecutorial discretion: Sex and race disparities in departures from the federal sentencing guidelines. Justice Research and Policy, 6(2), 45–78. https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.6.2.2004.45
Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2016). Minimum sentencing for murder in England and Wales: A critical examination 10 years after the criminal justice Act 2003. Punishment & Society, 18(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474515623104
Frase, R. S. (2005). Sentencing guidelines in Minnesota, 1978-2003. Crime and Justice, 32, 131–219. https://doi.org/10.1086/655354
Furramani, E., & Guli Hoti, P. (2022). Proportionality: A principle to be re-evaluated in Albanian criminal law. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 11(4), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2022-0118
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Klijn, A. (2015). The effects of judicial transparency on public trust: Evidence from a field experiment. Public Administration, 93(4), 995–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/ padm.12149
Gunawan, T. J., & Sholehuddin, M. (2023). Nonequivalence between imprisonment and fines in United States sentencing guidelines. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 11(9), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i9.512
Hamilton, M. (2021). Sentencing federal drug offenders. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 34(1), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2021.34.1.23
Hester, R. (2021). Punishing for the past (sometimes): Judicial perspectives on criminal history enhancements. The Prison Journal, 101(4), 443–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/003288 55211029663
Hirsch, A. V. (1992). Proportionality in the philosophy of punishment. Crime and Justice, 16, 55–98. https://doi.org/10.1086/449204
Irmawanti, N. D., & Arief, B. N. (2021). Urgensi tujuan dan pedoman pemidanaan dalam rangka pembaharuan sistem pemidanaan hukum pidana. Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia, 3(2), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v3i2.217-227
Johnson, B. D. (2005). Contextual disparities in guidelines departures: Courtroom social contexts, guidelines compliance, and extralegal disparities in criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43(3), 761–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0011-1348.2005.00023.x
Johnson, B. D., Ulmer, J. T., & Kramer, J. H. (2008). The social context of guidelines circumvention: The case of federal district courts. Criminology, 46(3), 737–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00125.x
Kiejnich-Kruk, K., Twardawa, M., & Formanowicz, P. (2023). Towards automated recommendations for drunk driving penalties in Poland-A case study analysis in selected court. Foundations of
Computing and Decision Sciences, 48(4), 425–451. https://doi.org/10.2478/fcds-2023-0019
Koehne, S., & Kuhn, M. (2015). Should unemployment insurance be asset tested? Review of Economic Dynamics, 18(3), 575–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.red.2014.09.005
Krasnostein, S., & Freiberg, A. (2013). Pursuing consistency in an individualistic sentencing framework: If you know where you’re going, how do you know when you’ve got there? Law and Contemporary Problems, 76, 265–288.
Langkun, T. S., Bahrain, B., Wassef, M., Wahyu, T., & Asram, A. (2014). Studi atas disparitas putusan pemidanaan perkara tindak pidana korupsi. Indonesia Corruption Watch.
Lousley, G. (2020). Sentencing “unwanted” migrants: The border, racism, and narrating punishability. Critical Criminology, 28(2), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-020-09513-5
Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2010). Kedudukan dan relevansi yurisprudensi untuk mengurangi disparitas putusan pengadilan. Puslitbang Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia.
Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2021). Direktori Putusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia.
Mallett, S. J. (2015). Judicial discretion in sentencing: A justice system that is no longer just?. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 46(2), 533–572. https://doi.org/10.26686/vuwlr. v46i2.4917
Mihardi, M. (2020, August 13). Perma 1/2020, Gayus Lumbuun: Bisa belenggu kebebasan hakim. Sindo News.
Milono, A. (2014). Formulasi pedoman penjatuhan sanksi pidana terhadap penyelenggara negara yang melakukan tindak pidana korupsi di Indonesia. Arena Hukum, 7(1), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2014.00701.7
Muhammad Azman Ng, N. Ayub, Z. A. & Abdul Rahman, R. (2022). The legal aspect of illicit enrichment in Malaysia: Is it a crime to be rich? UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 13. https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls2022.13.2.11
Mulyadi, L., Yahya, B., & Suhariyanto, B. (2019). Urgensi pedoman pemidanaan dalam rangka mewujudkan keadilan dan kepastian hukum. Prenadamedia Group.
Nik Mahmod, N. A. K. (2013). Good governance and the rule of law. UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 4, 1–31.
Nugroho, D. M. (2018). Dilema kebebasan hakim dalam menjatuhkan pidana minimum khusus. Qistie, 11(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.31942/jqi.v11i2.2595
Painter-Davis, N., & Ulmer, J. T. (2020). Discretion and disparity under sentencing guidelines revisited: The interrelationship between structured sentencing alternatives and guideline decisionmaking. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 57(3), 263–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427819874862
Pearson, M. (2020). Empathy and procedural justice in clash of rights cases. Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 9(2), 350–371. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojlr/rwaa012
Raine, J. W., & Dunstan, E. (2009). How well do sentencing guidelines work? Equity, proportionality and consistency in the determination of fine levels in the Magistrates’ Courts of England and Wales. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 48(1), 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14682311.2008.00546.x
Raphael, S. (2014). How do we reduce incarceration rates while maintaining public safety? Criminology & Public Policy, 13(4), 579–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12100
Roberts, J. V., Sanchez, J., & Marder, I. D. (2018). Individualisation at sentencing: The effects of guidelines and “preferred” numbers. Criminal Law Review, 2, 123–136.
Roberts, J. V. (2002). Alchemy in sentencing: An analysis of sentencing reform proposals in England and Wales. Punishment & Society, 4(4), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474502 004004046
Saleh, R. (1978). Stelsel pidana Indonesia. Aksara Baru.
Sentencing Council. (2019, January 10). General guideline: Overarching principles.
Singh, P. (2023). Determination of sentences in India: Policy and practice. International Annals of Criminology, 61(3–4), 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1017/cri.2023.20
Soedarto, S. (1986). Kapita selekta hukum pidana Indonesia. Alumni.
Tiarks, E. (2019). Restorative justice, consistency and proportionality: Examining the trade-off. Criminal Justice Ethics, 38(2), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2019.1638597
Ucaryilmaz, T. (2021). The principle of proportionality in modern Ius Gentium. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 36(1), 14–32. https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.529
Warren, P. Y., Cochran, J., Shields, R. T., Feldmeyer, B., Bailey, C., & Stewart, E. A. (2020). Sentencing departures and female defendants: Assessing the effects of racial and ethnic threat. Crime & Delinquency, 66(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719839394
Yee, T. S., Ismail, S. M., & Hussein, S. M. (2024). Social media and ethical limitations to Malaysian judiciary. UUM Journal of Legal Studies, 15(1), 121–147. https://doi.org/10. 32890/uumjls2024.15.1.6
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 UUM Journal of Legal Studies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Research impact
Harvested 2026-09-21Counts differ between services because each indexes a different body of literature. None of them is the whole picture.
