KAJIAN YURIDIS TUJUAN PEMIDANAAN BERDASARKAN TEORI UTILITAS PADA PUTUSAN NOMOR 653/Pid.Sus/2017/PN SDA

This study analyzes the appropriateness of the criminal sanction in Decision Number 653/Pid.Sus/2017/PN SDA concerning an act of violence against a 16-year-old victim committed by an 18-year-old defendant. The imposition of a three-month imprisonment raises the question of whether the sentence reflects penal objectives oriented toward utility. This research aims to assess whether the punishment aligns with the relative theory of punishment, which emphasizes prevention and offender improvement, as well as Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian theory, which focuses on achieving the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. This study employs a normative juridical method through literature-based research. Legal materials were obtained from legislation, scholarly works, official documents, and court decisions, and were analyzed qualitatively. The findings indicate that the three-month imprisonment does not reflect the objectives of the relative theory of punishment. In terms of general prevention, its utility is low because the educative function could be achieved through alternative sanctions without requiring imprisonment. Regarding special prevention, the defendant is young, a non-recidivist, remorseful, and acted under provocation by the victim, thus the need for imprisonment is minimal. From the perspective of offender improvement, imprisonment may instead generate negative impacts on the defendant’s personal development. Based on Bentham’s utilitarian indicators, the three-month prison sentence carries high adverse intensity for a young offender, is ineffective as a rehabilitative measure, lacks proportionality, and does not produce significant benefits for the offender, the victim, or society. Therefore, the punishment imposed in this decision does not optimally achieve utility, and alternative non-custodial sanctions would be more appropriate to apply.