Disparitas Putusan Pidana terhadap Pelaku Retardasi Mental

Abstrak

This article aims to analyze the disparity of court decisions against offenders with mental retardation from the perspective of criminal liability, particularly in Decision Number 256/Pid.B/2019/PN.Idm and Decision Number 57/Pid.B/2021/PN.Kba. The research employed a normative legal method using statutory and case approaches. The data consisted of secondary data obtained through library research and document studies of court decisions, which were then analyzed qualitatively. The results indicate that the disparity in court decisions was caused by differences in judges’ considerations regarding the defendants’ criminal responsibility. In Decision Number 256/Pid.B/2019/PN.Idm, the defendant was considered incapable of being held criminally responsible due to mild mental retardation accompanied by psychotic disorders, thereby qualifying for an excuse defense under Article 44 paragraph (1) of the Indonesian Criminal Code. In contrast, in Decision Number 57/Pid.B/2021/PN.Kba, the defendant was still sentenced because he was considered capable of understanding and controlling his actions. The obstacles faced by judges in imposing criminal sanctions include legal structure, legal substance, and legal culture factors. This study concludes that the absence of standardized parameters regarding the criminal responsibility of offenders with mental retardation creates inconsistency in the application of law and potentially leads to legal uncertainty.