A Process to Determine Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in an Attempt to Assess the Extent of Criminal Charges in Cases Involving Corruption in Indonesia

Abstract

This study examines the legal philosophical basis for determining aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing, identifies the causes of policy disparities in their application, and formulates an ideal policy for public prosecutors in determining criminal charges. This study employs a normative juridical method with several approaches, including: (1) the legislative approach, (2) the conceptual juridical approach, (3) the historical approach, and (4) the comparative approach, to analyze and examine the issue comprehensively. The research findings indicate several key considerations: (1) the need to enhance public prosecutors' understanding of the philosophical basis for determining aggravating and mitigating factors in criminal prosecutions, (2) the necessity of technical guidelines or regulations to establish ideal policies for determining these factors, and (3) in corruption cases, public prosecutors must explicitly explain (a) the defendant’s actions, (b) the consequences of those actions, and (c) external factors related to the corruption offense. These findings emphasize the importance of enhancing public prosecutors' understanding of the philosophical basis for determining aggravating and mitigating factors in criminal prosecutions. They also highlight the need for technical guidelines or regulations to establish ideal policies. In corruption cases, public prosecutors must explicitly explain the defendant’s actions, the consequences of those actions, and external factors related to the corruption offense.