Individualized Sentencing in Severed Group-Assault Cases: A Comparison of Kolaka District Court Decisions Nos. 44 and 61 of 2023
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article examines the relationship between the separation of criminal case files (splitsing), proof of joint violence, and individualized sentencing in two Kolaka District Court decisions arising from a single group-assault incident: No. 44/Pid.B/2023/PN Kka and No. 61/Pid.B/2023/PN Kka. It applies normative legal research using statutory, case and conceptual approaches, with a structured comparison of charged conduct, evidentiary basis, individual participation, prosecutorial demands, mitigating circumstances and final sentences. Three defendants in Decision No. 44 received ten-month custodial terms, while four defendants in Decision No. 61 received six-month terms. Those outcomes differed alongside prosecutorial demands of fifteen and ten months respectively. The existence of disparity does not establish injustice because the defendants’ roles and procedural circumstances also differed. However, the decisions as described in the available case summaries would benefit from more explicit reasoning connecting each defendant’s acts and personal circumstances to the sentence imposed. Splitsing is a procedural device, not an autonomous ground of unequal punishment. The article proposes a nonbinding, reviewable comparison matrix that safeguards evidentiary independence while encouraging transparent proportionality analysis. Law Number 1 of 2023 is discussed only as a prospective normative benchmark and is not applied retroactively to the 2023 judgments.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Anis, Harold, Veibe V. Sumilat, and Ignasius A. Tiolong. “Wewenang Pemecahan Perkara (Splitsing) Oleh Penuntut Umum Menurut Pasal 142 Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981.” Lex Crimen 7, no. 6 (2018).
Arafat, Muhammad Rusli, Sigid Suseno, and Widiati Wulandari. “Disparitas Pemidanaan Terhadap Pelaku Permufakatan Jahat Melakukan Tindak Pidana Narkotika dalam Prespektif Tujuan Hukum.” Kosmik Hukum 23, no. 2 (2023): 137–149. https://doi.org/10.30595/kosmikhukum.v23i2.18361.
Arief, Barda Nawawi. Kebijakan Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Kencana, 2021.
Ateng, Kenny Viano Lewi Kong, and Ade Adhari. “Kriteria Disparitas Pemidanaan yang Dapat Dipertanggungjawabkan.” Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Humaniora dan Politik 5, no. 3 (2025): 2019–2028. https://doi.org/10.38035/jihhp.v5i3.3843.
Febrian, Elwindhi. “Splitsing dalam perspektif asas contante justitie dan asas non self incrimination.” Majalah Hukum Nasional 49, no. 2 (2019): 107–130. https://doi.org/10.33331/mhn.v49i2.32.
Febriani, Nadia, Haryadi, and Dessy Rakhmawaty. “Penggunaan Saksi Mahkota (Kroongetuige) dalam Pembuktian di Persidangan Terhadap Tindak Pidana Narkotika.” PAMPAS: Journal of Criminal Law 1, no. 2 (2020): 43–67. https://doi.org/10.22437/pampas.v1i2.9614.
Hiariej, Eddy O. S. Prinsip-Prinsip Hukum Pidana. Yogyakarta: Cahaya Atma Pustaka, 2022.
Idrus, Nur Fadilah Al. “Disparitas putusan pemidanaan perkara penipuan online.” Jurnal Yudisial 16, no. 3 (2023): 325–341. https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v16i3.598.
Kolaka District Court. Decision No. 44/Pid.B/2023/PN Kka. 2023.
Kolaka District Court. Decision No. 61/Pid.B/2023/PN Kka. 2023.
Kovalaski, Katherine, and Muhammad Rustamaji. “Kesesuaian pertimbangan hakim yang menyebabkan disparitas pemidanaan dalam tindak pidana korupsi dengan kuhap.” Verstek 11, no. 1 (2023): 146–155. https://doi.org/10.20961/jv.v11i1.70923.
Lobo, Martina Nencylia Riwu, Simplexius Asa, and A Resopijani. “Mekanisme pemisahan perkara (splitsing) oleh jaksa penuntut umum dalam proses pembuktian oleh saksi mahkota.” Petitum Law Journal 3, no. 2 (2026): 638–653. https://doi.org/10.35508/pelana.v3i2.22776.
Maharani, Riyana, and Arie Kartika. “Kajian Hukum Disparitas Pemidanaan dalam Tindak Pidana Kekerasan Terhadap Pejabat.” Jurnal Hukum Sasana 12, no. 1 (2026): 240–251. https://doi.org/10.31599/sasana.v12i1.4666.
Murniati. “Analisis Yuridis terhadap Pemisahan Surat Dakwaan (Splitsing) oleh Penuntut Umum dalam Tindak Pidana Pertambangan dan Mineral dan Batu Bara Tanpa Izin.” Undergraduate thesis, Universitas Hasanuddin, 2024.
O.S.Lau, Etriwan, Rudepel Petrus Leo, and Darius A.Kian. “Pertimbangan Hakim dalam Penerapan Hukum Bagi Tindak Pidana Kekerasan yang Dilakukan Secara Bersama-Sama Terhadap Orang di Muka Umum.” Referendum : Jurnal Hukum Perdata dan Pidana 1, no. 3 (2024): 113–125. https://doi.org/10.62383/referendum.v1i3.90.
Pratama, Yogi. “Analisis Pemisahan Berkas Perkara Pidana (Splitsing) dalam Proses Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” E-Jurnal Fatwa Hukum 8, no. 2 (2025).
Pratiwi, Annisa Diana, and Yana Indawati. “Dasar Pertimbangan Hukum Tindak Pidana Pengeroyokan: Kajian Ratio Decidendi Putusan Nomor 355/Pid.B/2017/PN Bkn.” Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis 6, no. 7 (2025). https://doi.org/10.56370/jhlg.v6i7.854.
Putri, Intan Yuwanita, Noenik Soekorini, Hartoyo, and Fitri Ayuningtyas. “Pertimbangan Hakim dalam Menilai Unsur Bersama-Sama dalam Tindak Pidana Pengeroyokan (Pasal 170 KUHP jo. Pasal 55 KUHP): Analisis Putusan Nomor 1783/Pid.B/2024/PN.Sby.” EDU RESEARCH 7, no. 2 (2026): 7610–7621. https://doi.org/10.47827/jer.v7i2.3435.
Rahman, Habibie, Lilik Purwastuty, and Dessy Rakhmawati. “Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Saksi Mahkota dalam Proses Pemeriksaan Perkara Pidana.” PAMPAS: Journal of Criminal Law 1, no. 3 (2020): 120–138. https://doi.org/10.22437/pampas.v1i3.11088.
Rahmawati. “Kriteria Perkara Pidana yang Memerlukan Splitsing.” Thesis, Universitas Hasanuddin, 2021.
Razzak, Icha Hanifah, and Putri Maha Dewi. “Pertimbangan hakim dalam menilai saksi mahkota pada tindak pidana membantu melakukan pembunuhan berencana.” Verstek 11, no. 3 (2023): 479. https://doi.org/10.20961/jv.v11i3.73296.
Republic of Indonesia. Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht), art. 170(1), as applicable to 2023 proceedings.
Republic of Indonesia. Law No. 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code. Effective January 2, 2026.
Romdoni, Muhamad, and Surastini Fitriasih. “Disparitas pemidanaan dalam kasus tindak pidana khusus narkotika di pengadilan negeri tangerang.” Masalah-Masalah Hukum 51, no. 3 (2022): 287–298. https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.51.3.2022.287-298.
Saputra, Ricky, Sukhebi Mofea, and Raendhi Rahmadi. “Tinjauan Yuridis Efektivitas Pelaksanaan Pemisahan Berkas Perkara Pidana (Splitsing) oleh Jaksa Penuntut Umum dalam Proses Penuntutan.” Lex Veritatis 1, no. 2 (2022): 95–103.
Saragih, Benny Leonard, Ediwarman, and Muaz Zul. “Disparitas Penuntutan Pada Perkara Tindak Pidana Penganiayaan dalam Sistem Pemidanaan di Indonesia.” ARBITER: Jurnal Ilmiah Magister Hukum 1, no. 1 (2019): 55–67. https://doi.org/10.31289/arbiter.v1i1.107.
Suara, I Putu Gede Sumariartha. “Reformulasi kewenangan penuntut umum terhadap penerapan saksi mahkota dalam pembuktian tindak pidana korupsi.” Jurnal Magister Hukum Udayana (Udayana Master Law Journal) 6, no. 3 (2017): 369. https://doi.org/10.24843/jmhu.2017.v06.i03.p08.
Sukadana, I Made, Amiruddin, and Lalu Parman. “Alat bukti keterangan saksi mahkota dalam perkara pidana pencurian.” LAW REFORM 14, no. 2 (2018): 262–274. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v14i2.20873.
Sutikno. “Disparitas Pemidanaan Terhadap Pelaku Tindak Pidana Pencurian Dengan Kekerasan Secara Berlanjut.” Jurnal Sosial Humaniora Sigli 8, no. 1 (2025). https://doi.org/10.47647/jsh.v8i1.3326.
Syahputra, Muhammad, Muhammad Hatta, and Zulfan Z. “Saksi Mahkota dalam pembuktian pidana kasus Narkotika.” Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Fakultas Hukum Universitas Malikussaleh 4, no. 2 (2021). https://doi.org/10.29103/jimfh.v4i2.4075.
Yusman. “Saksi mahkota dalam proses penyelesaian perkara (splitsing) dalam perkara tindak pidana korupsi.” Rechtsregel : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 2, no. 1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.32493/rjih.v2i1.2984.