1

Indonesia have laws against narcotic

However the law is a bit strange.

Say there are 2 people doing the exact same crime, namely using drugs. One is jailed a minimum of 4 years and another is freed. The only difference is physical evidence even though both have positive urine tests.

All users must have "possessed". How does that work?

I did a lot of research and one of the reason is that they are charged with 2 different articles. One is charged with possessions and another is charged with usage.

Possession carry much bigger penalty even though every user must have possessed.

The only thing that may make sense is that the possession article is intended for "dealers". However, I do not find any corroborating evidences. Some legal expert have that opinion but that's pretty much it.

http://www.flevin.com/id/lgso/translations/JICA%20Mirror/english/4868_UU_35_2009_e.html

The article 112 says that

(1) Any person that without right or against the law possess, store, control, or provide Narcotics Category I which is not a plant, shall be punished with minimum imprisonment of 4 (four) years and a maximum of 12 (twelve) years and a minimum fine Rp 800.000.000,00 (eight hundred million rupiah) and maximum Rp 8.000.000.000,00 (eight billion rupiah).

Then article 127 says that

(1) Any person that without right or against the law using the Narcotics of category III against others or give the Narcotics of category III to be used of others, shall be punished with minimum imprisonment 3 (three) years and a maximum of 10 (ten) years and fined at least Rp 600.000.000,00 (six hundred million rupiah) and maximum Rp 5.000.000.000,00 (five billion rupiah).

I've heard that many complains about these laws.

Anyone that uses narcotic must have control, possess, or store the narcotic. So many judges uses article 112 instead of 127.

There are opinions that article 112 is for dealers and not users. That is why the penalty is higher.

However, I do not see anything in the law or the title of the law that says that 112 is for dealers.

So which one is right?

Bonus:

Is this common in all over the world that the penalty for storing, possessing, or controlling narcotic is heavier than the penalty for "using". Notice that all users must have stored, possessed, and controlled narcotic for the purpose of using.

Or is Indonesian laws very strange?

Update: I studied court cases in Indonesia.

This is some samples I found.

I saw 2 users. One get jailed for 6 years (for possession) but most are freed. The difference is trivial. The one jailed for 6 years have physical evidence of possession. Of course all users must have possessed. The idea that the court can't figure this out by logic makes me wonder about the reasonableness of evidence in Indonesia court.

The drug is the same. Meth.

https://www.idntimes.com/news/indonesia/rochmanudin-wijaya/polisi-hasil-tes-urine-andi-arief-positif-konsumsi-narkoba-jenis-sabu <- politicians free without going to trial

https://www.msn.com/id-id/berita/nasional/manajemen-rsko-cibubur-mengaku-tidak-pernah-merehabilitasi-andi-arief/ar-BBVk42G <- told to to go rehabiliation without trial. Of course because most users are not addicted, the rehabilitation clinic simply say he tested negative and move on. Anyone "sentenced" to rehabilitation need only to stop using drugs for 2 weeks to test negative. Typical normal users use drugs like once every 6 months. Some drugs like DMT is used like once or twice a life time

https://radarbali.jawapos.com/read/2019/01/24/115702/doyan-sabu-biar-pd-pemandu-lagu-berparas-cantik-terancam-bui-12-tahun <- minimum sentence 6 years

https://beritabali.com/read/2019/03/27/201903270013/Jaksa-Tuntut-Pelayan-Kafe-Konsumsi-Sabu-Agar-Kuat-Minum-Layani-Tamu-6-Tahun-Penjara.html <-charged with 6 years jail

You probably need google translate and understand that shabu means meth.

Basically the "smart" users would use it right away to minimize chance of having physical evidences and that's silly.

Cops are often tested for urine. About 10% test positive. Assuming people use drugs once every month and the test is valid for 3 days, the estimate is that all cops use it. Those cops get "counselling"

Someone told me that all cops are actually using it

https://regional.kompas.com/read/2016/04/01/17350831/Dari.25.Polisi.yang.Ikut.Tes.Urine.12.Orang.Positif.Narkoba this article says 12 out of 25 polices are tested "positive"

https://www.jawapos.com/jpg-today/21/02/2018/propam-gelar-tes-urine-terhadap-114-polisi-ada-yang-positif-nyabu/

This one tested positive too. I can't found the case where they just got "counselling". I think I read that. In any case there is no way the cops go to jail. Our jail is full.

http://www.jakarta100bars.com/2015/04/illogical-facts-drugs-indonesia.html

Improve this question

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
-8

I do not see anything in the law or the title of the law that says that 112 is for dealers. So which one is right?

Controlling and providing narcotics describe dealers' activity. Therefore, the plain language of article 112 certainly sanctions dealers. At the same time, the article can sanction users, since they typically are in illegal possession of the narcotics they abuse.

The unqualified terms possession and store are more effective (than if qualified) for legislative purposes in that they simultaneously encompass possession (1) for use, (2) with, or (3) even without intent to distribute, since each modality proves detrimental to society. A real life example of the danger from modality (3) is amenable to your remark that

So many judges uses article 112 instead of 127.

Legislative terms such as possession and store remain unqualified, thereby sanctioning possession even when an intent to distribute drugs is non-existent or cannot be proved.

Improve this answer
12
  • Why the downvote? This answer addresses the OP's question about statutory interpretation, narcotics, and judges. The answer further gives a real life example that involves narcotics and a judge. The fact that in this example the judge is the criminal does not warrant downvoting an answer that even provides verifiable sources of that irony.
    – Iñaki Viggers
    Commented Mar 8, 2019 at 19:14
  • I understand. So in US, storing narcotics also carry higher penalty than consuming it?
    – user4234
    Commented Mar 9, 2019 at 14:30
  • @aegoscharyo I am not much knowledgeable of narcotics legislation, but yes, possession appears to lead to higher penalties than consumption. Example: see MCL 752.272 and 752.273, which classify drug abuse as a misdemeanor, whereas MCL 333.7403 classifies possession as a felony punishable by a much longer imprisonment. This makes sense from the standpoint that someone in possession can typically prompt n people to abuse drugs, whereas the addict just wants it all for himself.
    – Iñaki Viggers
    Commented Mar 9, 2019 at 15:14
  • But what about if people that possess things for the sake of his own consumption? There is a letter from Indonesian's supreme court that says that possessions below certain limits don't lead to jail. However, the judges must have ignored that
    – user4234
    Commented Mar 10, 2019 at 9:40
  • 1
    As per meta.stackexchange.com/a/286090/260340 this answer has been edited for compliance with the Be Nice policy.
    – jimsug
    Commented Apr 2, 2019 at 1:36
4

Its worth actually reading through the law again - they're meant for different categories of drugs - and its worth looking up the relevant laws as a whole. You can't cherrypick which law you charge them under in this case. It depends on what the suspect has in posession, and if you have more serious charges, they're probably going to be preferred unless the prosecution decides to throw the entire library at the suspect and charge them with everything they can, or a larger subset.

A quick search on the internet - which shouldn't be taken as legal advice, brings up this link. Category 1 drugs are addictive and seen as therapeutically useless - you shouldn't have any realistic reason to have quantities of it in your posession. Category 3 is drugs with therapeutic use - stuff like codine. You could get a prescription for that, but there's potential for abuse.

They're aimed at different classes of drugs - and the confusion is over a misinterpretation of what the law is about.

As an aside, this is why you need to usually read more than just a specific statute or law to get what its about.

Improve this answer
4
  • I read the laws. The drugs are the same. Also ganja, MDMA and LSD is schedule 1 drug in Indonesia despite obvious lack of addictive properties.
    – user4234
    Commented Apr 2, 2019 at 4:48
  • Yes there are laws for different categories of drugs. Article 127 and article 112 both talks about schedule 1 drugs. Those are usually the most popular drugs. MDMA, LSD, Meth, cocaine, Heroin, psychobilin.
    – user4234
    Commented Apr 2, 2019 at 4:50
  • I saw 2 users. One get jailed for 6 years (for possession) but most are freed. The difference is trivial. The one jailed for 6 years have physical evidence of possession. Of course all users must have possessed. The idea that the court can't figure this out by logic makes me wonder about the reasonableness of evidence in Indonesia court. The drug is the same. Meth.
    – user4234
    Commented Apr 2, 2019 at 4:52
  • This answer is well false. For reasons I have explained.
    – user4234
    Commented Apr 2, 2019 at 4:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .