Rows Of Judge Considerations Behind The Lightest Sentence Arif Rachman Instead Of Claims

Arif Rachman/PHOTO: Rizky Adytia-VOI

The panel of judges imposed a prison sentence of 10 months and a fine of Rp. 10 million on the defendant Arif Rachman Arifin in the obstruction of justice case. The verdict is lower than the demands of the public prosecutor (JPU) because there are several considerations. For mitigating considerations, the panel of judges has three notes. Starting from Arif Rachman Arifin, who has family responsibilities to being polite during the trial process. "The defendant has never been convicted, the defendant has family responsibilities, the defendant is polite and cooperative, thus making the disclosure of the shooting incident of Brigadier Yoshua Hutabarat become clear," said Member Judge Hendra Yuristiawan during a trial at the South Jakarta District Court, Thursday, February 23. Meanwhile, there is only one consideration for Arif Rachman Arifin. His actions in destroying evidence in the form of laptops that display copies of CCTV DVR are considered not to reflect the professionalism of a member of the National Police. "The defendant's actions are contrary to the professionalism principle that applies as a member of the police of the Republic of Indonesia," he said With this consideration, the panel of judges believed that the verdict handed down to Arif Rachman Arifin was fair to all parties. "Considering, that based on the considerations above, the sentence imposed on the Defendant below is seen as sufficient to fulfill a sense of justice and commensurate with the state of the defendant's actions," said Judge Hendra. The verdict from the panel of judges is lower than the demands of the public prosecutor (JPU). This is because previously Arif Rachman was sentenced to one year in prison and a fine of Rp. 10 million. His actions violated Article 49 in conjunction with Article 33 of Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) to 1 of the Criminal Code.