Evidentiary Assessment in the Imprisonment of Narcotics Users as Self-Victimizing Offenders

Abstract

Cases involving narcotics abuse in Indonesia encompass a wide range of offenders, some of whom are not conventional criminals yet are subject to identical punitive measures. Narcotics users occupy a unique legal and social position: they are frequently sentenced to imprisonment despite being self-victimizing offenders whose actions primarily harm themselves rather than society at large. The prevailing reliance on incarceration has not effectively reduced drug abuse but has instead intensified systemic issues, including overcrowding in correctional facilities, inconsistent sentencing practices, legal uncertainty, and corruption within law enforcement institutions. This study focuses on the role of evidentiary assessment in determining whether narcotics users should be treated as self-victimizing offenders rather than conventional criminals. By combining normative and empirical legal research methods, this study evaluates both the statutory framework and the practical implementation of narcotics laws. Normative analysis examines relevant legislation, including Law No. 35 of 2009 on Narcotics and its interplay with the new Criminal Code (Law No. 1 of 2023), emphasizing provisions that allow rehabilitation for users. The empirical component investigates how evidentiary procedures, including medical, psychological, and Integrated Assessment Team evaluations, influence judicial outcomes and sentencing consistency. The findings reveal that the current evidentiary process often prioritizes possession and formal illegality over users’ dependency and rehabilitative needs, resulting in the misrecognition of self-victimization and overreliance on imprisonment. This study concludes that reforming evidentiary assessment to systematically recognize addiction and dependency is crucial for promoting a more proportionate, humane, and effective sentencing policy. Emphasizing rehabilitation and treatment over incarceration not only aligns legal practice with the intent of the law but also enhances public health outcomes, reduces recidivism, and mitigates the social harm associated with punitive approaches.