Analysis of Sentencing Disparity in Online Gambling Offenses (A Study of Decisions Number 180/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Gto and Number 270/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Gto)

The proliferation of online gambling promotion by personal social media account holders demands the consistent application of law, while judges' freedom in imposing sentences (judicial discretion) has the potential to create disparities that undermine public trust in the judiciary. This study aims to analyze the judicial considerations that give rise to sentencing disparity in Decision Number 180/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Gto and Decision Number 270/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Gto, as well as the application of the objectives of law in both decisions. This study uses a normative legal method with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Primary legal materials, consisting of both decisions and related regulations, together with secondary and tertiary materials, were analyzed descriptively and qualitatively by examining the judges' considerations, the elements of the offense, and the aggravating/mitigating circumstances of the defendants. The findings show that a sentencing disparity has occurred: Decision Number 180 imposed a sentence of 4 (four) months, while Decision Number 270 imposed 3 (three) months, even though both applied Article 45(2) in conjunction with Article 27(2) of Law Number 19 of 2016. This disparity is influenced by differences in the judges' convictions, the emphasis placed on aggravating and mitigating factors, and the composition of the panel of judges. the Supreme Court develop more detailed sentencing guidelines to reduce the potential for disparity in similar cases.