Disparitas pidana menimbulkan rasa ketidakadilan pada diri terdakwa maupun pada masyarakat pada umumnya. Dalam penelitian ini, penulis menganalisa perbedaan perimbangan hakim hingga menimbulkan disparitas pidana dalam Putusan Nomor 1981/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Sby diaman terdakwa divonis pidana selama 4 tahun 6 bulan dan Putusan Nomor 1822/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Sby dimana terdakwa divonis pidana selama 2 tahun 6 bulan. Kedua putusan tersebut memuat kasus yang hampir sama yaitu kasus penyalahgunaan narkotika golongan I kristal metamfetamina yang diputus dengan pasal yang sama dan fakta persidangan terbukti bahwa barang bukti yang ditemukan juga hampir sama. Adanya disparitas pidana dapat disebabkan oleh faktor hukum dan faktor hakim. Faktor hukum disparitas pidana dapat disebabkan karena tidak terdapat pedoman pemidanaan dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana. Sedangkan faktor hukum disparitas pidana dapat disebabkan karena faktor internal hakim. Dalam penelitian ini, penulis menggunakan metode penelitian hukum empiris. Sumber datanya didapatkan dengan mengamati perilaku hakim dengan wawancara dengan hakim. Berdasarkan hasil wawancara, didapatkan bahwa faktor yang menimbulkan disparitas pidana dalam kedua putusan tersebut disebabkan oleh perbedaan pandangan hakim mengenai rasa keadilan yang ada dalam masyarakat dan perbedaan pedoman hakim Ketika memutus suatu perkara. Hakim pada putusan Nomor 1981/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Sby berpedoman pada konsep hukum progresif yang menganggap bahwa dalam memberikan putusan tidaklah harus berpatokan pada bunyi undang-undang melainkan pada rasa keadilan dalam masyarakat dikarenakan undang-undang tidak selalu relevan. Sedangkan hakim pada putusan Nomor 1822/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Sby berpedoman pada konsep hukum positivistik legalistik yang berpegang teguh pada bunyi undang-undang.

Kata Kunci: Disparitas Pidana, Kebebasan Hakim, Narkotika

Criminal disparities or differences in criminal decisions give rise to a sense of injustice in the accused and in society in general. In this study, the authors analyze the differences in the balance of judges that have led to criminal disparities in Decision Number 1981/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Sby and Decision Number 1822/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Sby. Decision Number 1981/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Sby was given a criminal sentence by a judge for 2 (two) years 6 (six) months and Decision Number 1822/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Sby was given a criminal sentence for 4 (four) years 6 (six) months and the two decisions contained almost the same case, namely the case of abuse of narcotics class I crystal methamphetamine which was decided under the same article and the facts at the trial proved that the evidence found was also almost the same. The existence of criminal disparities can be caused by legal factors and judge factors. The legal factor that creates criminal disparity can be caused by the absence of sentencing guidelines in the Criminal Procedure Code. While the legal factors that arise criminal disparity can be caused by internal factors of the judge. In this study, the authors used an empirical legal research method in which the data source was obtained by observing the behavior of judges by conducting interviews with judges. Based on the results of the author's interview with the judge, it was found that the factors that gave rise to criminal disparity in the two decisions were caused by differences in the views of judges regarding the sense of justice that exists in society and differences in the judge's guidelines when deciding a case. The judge in decision No. 1981/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Sby is guided by the concept of progressive law which considers that in making a decision it is not necessary to rely on the sound of the law but rather on the sense of justice in society because laws are not always relevant with the times though only a few years ago. Whereas the judge in decision Number 1822/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Sby is guided by the positivistic legalistic concept of law which adheres to the sound of the law because giving a decision in accordance with the sound of the law is considered justice.

Keywords: Disparity in Verdist, Deliberation of Judges, Narcotic