Penerapan Asas Proporsionalitas dan Ultimum Remedium dalam Tindak Pidana Pencurian Ringan (Studi Putusan Nomor 189/Pid.B/2025/Pn Rap.)

Abstract

ABSTRAK

 Penelitian ini dilatarbelakangi oleh adanya Putusan Nomor    189/Pid.B/2025/PN Rap. yang menjatuhkan pidana penjara selama 9 (sembilan) bulan terhadap pelaku pencurian berondolan kelapa sawit dengan nilai kerugian sebesar Rp171.200,00. Meskipun nilai kerugian yang ditimbulkan relatif kecil, hakim tetap menjatuhkan pidana penjara sehingga menimbulkan pertanyaan mengenai kesesuaian penerapan asas proporsionalitas dan asas ultimum remedium dalam penjatuhan pidana. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis penerapan asas proporsionalitas dalam penjatuhan pidana terhadap tindak pidana pencurian ringan berdasarkan Putusan Nomor 189/Pid.B/2025/PN Rap. serta menganalisis penerapan asas ultimum remedium dalam putusan tersebut. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach), pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach), dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Bahan hukum yang digunakan terdiri atas bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier yang diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan. Seluruh bahan hukum dianalisis secara kualitatif dengan metode penalaran deduktif untuk menilai kesesuaian pertimbangan hakim dengan asas proporsionalitas dan asas ultimum remedium dalam hukum pidana Indonesia. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penerapan asas proporsionalitas dalam Putusan Nomor 189/Pid.B/2025/PN Rap. telah mencerminkan keseimbangan antara tingkat kesalahan pelaku, akibat yang ditimbulkan, dan tujuan pemidanaan. Majelis Hakim tidak hanya mempertimbangkan kecilnya nilai kerugian yang dialami korban, tetapi juga memperhatikan tingkat kesalahan terdakwa, sifat perbuatannya, serta status terdakwa sebagai residivis yang telah berulang kali melakukan tindak pidana. Dengan demikian, pidana penjara selama 9 (sembilan) bulan dipandang masih proporsional karena mempertimbangkan seluruh aspek yang relevan dalam penjatuhan pidana. Penelitian ini juga menunjukkan bahwa asas ultimum remedium belum diterapkan secara mutlak dalam perkara tersebut. Meskipun secara teoritis pidana penjara merupakan upaya terakhir, Majelis Hakim tetap menjatuhkan pidana penjara dengan pertimbangan bahwa terdakwa merupakan residivis yang sebelumnya pernah dijatuhi pidana namun tetap mengulangi perbuatannya. Oleh karena itu, penggunaan pidana penjara dalam perkara ini dinilai masih dapat dibenarkan sebagai upaya memberikan efek jera, mencegah pengulangan tindak pidana, melindungi masyarakat, serta tetap sejalan dengan asas proporsionalitas dan tujuan pemidanaan dalam hukum pidana Indonesia. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian tersebut, disarankan agar hakim lebih mengoptimalkan penerapan asas proporsionalitas dan menjadikan pidana penjara sebagai upaya terakhir (ultimum remedium) dalam perkara pencurian ringan dengan tetap mempertimbangkan kondisi konkret setiap perkara.

ABSTRACT

This research is motivated by Decision Number 189/Pid.B/2025/PN Rap., which imposed a nine-month imprisonment sentence on the perpetrator of palm oil fruit theft, involving a loss valued at IDR 171,200. Although the resulting loss was relatively small, the judge still imposed a prison sentence, raising questions regarding the conformity of the application of the principle of proportionality and the principle of ultimum remedium in sentencing. Therefore, this study aims to analyse the application of the principle of proportionality in imposing punishment for minor theft based on Decision Number 189/Pid.B/2025/PN Rap. and to analyse the application of the principle of ultimum remedium in the decision. This research employs normative juridical legal research using a statutory approach, a conceptual approach, and a case approach. The legal materials consist of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials obtained through a literature study. All legal materials were analysed qualitatively using deductive reasoning to assess the conformity of the judge's considerations with the principles of proportionality and ultimum remedium in Indonesian criminal law. The results show that the application of the principle of proportionality in Decision Number 189/Pid.B/2025/PN Rap. reflects a balance between the perpetrator's degree of culpability, the consequences of the offence, and the objectives of sentencing. The Panel of Judges considered not only the relatively small amount of loss suffered by the victim but also the defendant's degree of culpability, the nature of the offence, and the defendant's status as a recidivist who had repeatedly committed criminal offences. Therefore, the nine-month imprisonment sentence is considered proportionate because it takes into account all relevant aspects of sentencing. This research also shows that the principle of ultimum remedium was not applied absolutely in the case. Although imprisonment is theoretically regarded as a last resort, the Panel of Judges continued to impose a prison sentence on the grounds that the defendant was a recidivist who had previously been sentenced but continued to repeat the offence. Therefore, the imposition of imprisonment in this case is considered justifiable as an effort to provide a deterrent effect, prevent recidivism, protect society, and remain consistent with the principle of proportionality and the objectives of punishment under Indonesian criminal law. Based on these findings, it is recommended that judges further optimise the application of the principle of proportionality and position imprisonment as a last resort (ultimum remedium) in minor theft cases while continuing to consider the specific circumstances of each case.