Judge Disagrees with the Prosecutor's Demand of 1 Year in Prison

In its judgment, the Panel of Judges stated that it did not agree with the Public Prosecutor's demand that the defendant be sentenced to 1 (one) year in prison.

The Panel of Judges assessed that, although Laras was proven to have committed incitement, she did not take further action, such as organizing the masses, gathering like-minded people, or mobilizing other parties—either through electronic means or conventional means—to commit similar acts.

The Panel of Judges also considered that the defendant was a first-time offender, had never been involved in a criminal case before, and was considered to have a great opportunity to improve herself in the future.

“The defendant's life history and social conditions show that the defendant has the potential to become a better person, so a long prison sentence could have a negative impact on her future”, according to considerations as quoted on the Youtube page.

New Criminal Code Basis: Article 70 Paragraph (1), Article 75, and Article 76

The Panel of Judges' considerations refer to Article 70 paragraph (1) of the new Criminal Code, which affirms that imprisonment should not be imposed on perpetrators who are first-time offenders. On that basis, the Panel of Judges chose supervisory punishment as regulated in Article 75 and Article 76 of the new Criminal Code, which emphasizes guidance, behavior supervision, and prevention of recurrence of criminal acts.