The general, but false, perception of migrant smuggling through Indonesia, a large, archipelagic country, is that smugglers operate entirely on their own. In fact, the more complex smuggling operations rely on broad networks of foreign organizers as well as local intermediaries and ground staff. In 2011, the Indonesian legislature introduced a severe minimum sentence for any involvement in migrant smuggling with the expectation that the judiciary would apply the sentence in all future cases. However, some judges proceeded to hand down sentences below the statutory minimum, arguing that the punishment is not commensurate to the relatively minor roles played by locals. This article examines how judges at all levels of the judiciary did so in ten related cases. In conclusion, it argues that statutory sentences are not mandatory in Indonesia and that, by applying below-minimum sentences, judges not only maintain judicial independence; they also effectively exercise a judicial review function.

中文翻译：

---

司法自由裁量权和通过印度尼西亚偷运移民的最低法定刑期

对通过印度尼西亚这个大型群岛国家偷运移民的普遍但错误的看法是，偷运者完全靠自己运作。事实上，更复杂的走私活动依赖于广泛的外国组织者网络以及当地中介和地勤人员。2011 年，印度尼西亚立法机构对任何参与偷运移民的行为制定了严厉的最低刑罚，并期望司法机构将在未来的所有案件中适用该刑罚。然而，一些法官继续判处低于法定最低限度的刑罚，认为惩罚与当地人所扮演的相对较小的角色不相称。本文考察了各级司法机关的法官在十个相关案件中是如何做到这一点的。最后，它认为法定判决在印度尼西亚不是强制性的，而且，通过使用低于最低限度的刑罚，法官不仅保持了司法独立；他们还有效地行使司法审查职能。