-3

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

Article 128

(3) Narcotics addicts that are old enough as referred to in Article 55 paragraph (2) are currently undergoing medical rehabilitation 2 (two) times the period of medical treatment in the hospital and/or medical rehabilitation institutions designated by the government was not sentenced.

Was not sentenced with what?

One lawyer says that a person going through rehabilitation will not be prosecuted by article 111 to 127 of the same law. However, the lawyer said he knows it from cops. Another lawyer says it won't help. Also the lawyer says that this applies only if amount of physical evidence is lower than some threshold.

Is it true? If so, where is it written?

4
  • 1
    You have packed way too many vague questions in here. Don't ask "How does the law work": ask one specific question. For example, that one clause of the law. Leave it at that. As I mentioned before, though, this is not the law of Indonesia, this is a translation of a law. The translation is wrong: law.stackexchange.com/questions/44445/…
    – user6726
    Jun 16 at 16:07
  • I make the questions far shorter. Is this good now?
    – obfuscated
    Jun 16 at 16:21
  • Read the other question, it provides your answer.
    – user6726
    Jun 16 at 18:30
  • That answer doesn't specifically answer what's asked in this question. The answer says that the point is you are getting treatment bla bla. So after you get treatment, can you rob bank or be terrorist? You can't right. You are not immune to all laws. You are immune to some laws. What are those? Is immunity even the right words here? Court cases show that those doing treatments are charged with possession, buying, etc. However, those are often overturned in supreme court, after defendant is in jail for about 6 months - 1 year
    – obfuscated
    Jun 21 at 15:58
2

One lawyer says that a person going through rehabilitation will not be prosecuted by article 111 to 127 of the same law. However, the lawyer said he knows it from cops. Another lawyer says it won't help. Also the lawyer says that this applies only if amount of physical evidence is lower than some threshold.

It isn't at all uncommon for the law to be unclear or ambiguous.

The correct meaning may be indeterminate, in which case you have to assume that in the event of a dispute, that any possible interpretation could be ruled to be correct. There isn't always one "true" answer.

If law enforcement has a clear view of what that means, this is important to know, whether or not this view is "correct" in an absolute sense.

What you need to know and what is helpful depends a great deal upon why you need to know.

2
  • In practice lower courts sentence users to jail anyway but it's usually overturned in supreme court. So it seems that even judges have different opinions. My concern is, if combined with article 128 of indonesian law, Indonesia could have been one of the country that decriminalize drug usage and small possession. However, it's rarely known because if it's wildly known then cops will lose major portion of their money –
    – obfuscated
    Jun 22 at 1:28
  • Interested people can share the law with others. But if the law is uncertain, it may be necessary to clarify the law, for example, in a high profile test case, to make it widely known.
    – ohwilleke
    Jun 23 at 22:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.