The Sentencing Guideline Formulation to the Corrupts State Official

Abstract

The many criminal acts of corruption today are done by state officials (executive, legislative and judicative) from the central level to the local level with loss reach billion and trillion rupiahs. The corruption among the state officials is not done individually-traditionally but it has been done communally-professionally, but many of the doers have been charged by Article 2 Clause (1) and Article 3 Law No 31 Year 1999 jo Law No 20 Year 2001 about Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption. Criminal threats of article 2 clause (1) is life imprisonment or imprisonment  4-20 years and fine between RP 200 million – Rp 1 billion and criminal threat  of article 3 is life imprisonment  or imprisonment 1-20 years and /or fine between Rp 50 millions – Rp 1 billion. Criminal threats of article 2 clause (1) and article 3 is imprisonment 1-4 years and fine Rp 50 millions – Rp 200 billions so produce  judge tendency to impose minimum punishment sentence minimum criminal sanctions (light verdict). In the sentencing to the corruption doers, the judge tend to sentence minimum verdict to the state officials and sentence severe verdict to the  corruption that is done by civil   servant or individuals, because there is no   sentencing guidelines. The senticing only based on the discreation judiciary principle as regulated in the Law No 48  Year 2009 about Judicial Power. Criminal sanctions that are imposed to the states officials that do corruption (executive, legislative, judicative) are severe  criminal sanctions that followed with the punishment weighting down, so able to produce deterrent effect. It needs formulation of sentencing guidelines that can be used as reference for the judge in sentencing  proportionally suitable with the criminal actions danger by considering the classification and stratification of the state official positions (executive, legislative, judicative) from the central level to the local level, the amount of state loss and the received gratification and the imposed punishment to the state officials added with one third of the main punishment imposed by the judge.

Keywords: formulation, sentencing guidelines, criminal sanction, criminal acts of corruption.