Abstract
This chapter explores judicial perspectives on sentencing minor drug offenders in Indonesia. As a basis for the framework for this study, a concept of Goffman on dramaturgy was used to explain the dramaturgical competence of the panel judges in their attempts to show accountability to their audiences (i.e., the sphere of politics, the public, and religion). Conceptualisation of this study stems from this author former self-identity as a judge but also from the author biography since the author more familiar with the practical pressure and challenges of lower court judges. This chapter contributes to knowledge by considering that the judicial awareness of the issues surrounding justice and public acceptance led to the situation where they were attempting to present a unique balance between pursuing justice and public service.
TopBackground
In the last two decades, there have been an increasing number of studies, particularly in western countries, exploring the relationship between judicial culture factors when sentencing (Nolan, 2009; Hutton, 2006). It relates the judicial culture in this chapter to the knowledge that informs everyday practice and shapes the Judges’ values such as bureaucratic culture. It is noteworthy that since early 2003 there has been an increasing number of studies, particularly in western countries, exploring the relationship between judicial culture and their performances in managing the court's caseload. Lipsky (2010), for instance, found that at street level-bureaucrats, lower court judges are subject to performing the higher court. Thus, judges in the lower court are expected to satisfy those in the higher court. This is what Lipsky describes as judicial coping strategies. Lipsky's study showed how their bureaucratic culture, which required compliance with senior judges' directives, influenced the judges. It reflects several debates about the judicial coping strategies in the literature. These debates have taken place between an international context around the judicial culture. A proponent of judicial coping strategies claims that junior judges followed senior judges' opinions (Klein & Mitchell, 2010).
On the one hand, judges are “independent” (Biland & Steinmetz, 2014) and permitted exercising judicial discretion (Thomas, 2003). In contrast, judges are “dependent” on their bureaucratic culture, which needs to give accountability to the chief justice concerning their performances in managing the court's caseload. This bureaucratic culture and managerial orientation may subvert the judicial interpretation of justice into merely expediting the court's caseload, which is perceived as an essential criterion from the higher court (Lipsky, 2010). Because of their bureaucratic culture and under the court's misplaced aim of pursuing cases-processing efficiency, they may sentence those offenders who wish to exercise their right to trial more severe than those who pleaded guilty (Ulmer et al., 2010; Ulmer & Bradley, 2006; Kramer & Ulmer, 2009).
Key Terms in this Chapter
KUHAP: The Criminal Law Procedures Code.
SKB: Joint Agreement of six ministries.
Illegal Drug: Is the drugs, controlled under the 2009 Indonesian Drug Act, such as cannabis and methamphetamine.
Drug Uses: The illegal use of drugs, controlled under the Indonesian 2009 Drug Act. The term 'drug use' may appear in this chapter as part of quotations from the participants.
Drug Sentencing: The decision-making of all the panel judges. Other terms related to drug use and terms used in the qualitative study are discussed and defined throughout this chapter, when appropriate.
PERMA: The Supreme Court external regulation.
BAPAS: The correctional officer for children.
SEMA: The Supreme Court internal regulation.