Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Jasmine Abdurrachim, Rofiq Hidayat
Photo by: SGP
The pros and cons of the death penalty have long been at the centre of an open and ongoing debate between human-rights activists on one side, and those who are in favor of capital punishment in Indonesia on the other.
Fifteen articles regarding the death penalty are set out in the Draft Law on the Indonesian Criminal Code (“RKUHP”) and still remain in question. The Constitutional Court (“MK”) has already declared that the death penalty is indeed constitutional, however various international agreements pertaining to human rights, which Indonesia is a signatory to, state otherwise.
Mr. Wahyudi Djafar, a member of the National Alliancefor IndonesianPenal-Code Reform, has stated that the application of the death penalty must be carried out selectively and reviewed by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.
Capital punishment is an extremely serious matter, according to Mr. Djafar, who also points out that other countries have already abolished the death sentence, as it does not seem to offer any deterrent to people willing to engage in extraordinary crimes such as narcotics trafficking.
In a discussion held at the House of Representatives (“House”) building on 8 September 2015, Mr. Djafar, who is also an active member of the Division for Policy Development and Monitoring Network, which is itself a part of the Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (“ELSAM”), argued against capital punishment.
Mr. Djafar claimed that, based on a study of the effectiveness of the death penalty as a way of discouraging people from engaging in narcotics crimes, capital punishment did not prove to be any more effective than the threat of life imprisonment.
In both cases, the crime rate has been steadily increasing. Mr. Djafar thus believes that matters of ideology and religion should be set aside, as they relate to the death penalty, and that other methods and sentences should be tried.
Lawmaker Arsul Sani (Commission III), however, expressed the view that the death sentence was still required. Mr. Sani stated that although he respected differences in ideology with regard to the application of the death penalty in Indonesia, he wanted to remind Mr. Djafar that out of 52 studied countries, at least 36 of them still applied the death penalty. Mr. Djafar’s input is nevertheless to be brought into consideration during this lengthy deliberation process.
Taufiqulhadi, another Commission III member, added that the death penalty was still relevant in Indonesia in relation to extraordinary crimes such as those involving narcotics, due to the serious impact of such crimes upon the younger generation.
Lawmaker Dwi Ria Latifa (Commission III) also offered input into the discussion and related that while on a trip to the United Kingdom, a number of members of the RKUHP Working Committee had had a meeting with Amnesty International at which representatives of the famous international NGO had questioned Indonesia’s continued application of the death penalty, a policy with which they strongly disagreed.
Mrs. Latifa, a politician from the Indonesia Democratic Party of Struggle (“PDI-P”), described how the RKUHP Working Committee had drafted a statement relating to extraordinary crimes, such as those involving narcotics, and their impact upon the development of the younger generation. This statement sought to justify the death penalty in these cases and was sent to Amnesty International.
“However, they offered no response," concluded Mrs. Latifa.
(sp)
Jasmine Abdurrachim, Rofiq Hidayat
Photo by: SGP
The pros and cons of the death penalty have long been at the centre of an open and ongoing debate between human-rights activists on one side, and those who are in favor of capital punishment in Indonesia on the other.
Fifteen articles regarding the death penalty are set out in the Draft Law on the Indonesian Criminal Code (“RKUHP”) and still remain in question. The Constitutional Court (“MK”) has already declared that the death penalty is indeed constitutional, however various international agreements pertaining to human rights, which Indonesia is a signatory to, state otherwise.
Mr. Wahyudi Djafar, a member of the National Alliancefor IndonesianPenal-Code Reform, has stated that the application of the death penalty must be carried out selectively and reviewed by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.
Capital punishment is an extremely serious matter, according to Mr. Djafar, who also points out that other countries have already abolished the death sentence, as it does not seem to offer any deterrent to people willing to engage in extraordinary crimes such as narcotics trafficking.
In a discussion held at the House of Representatives (“House”) building on 8 September 2015, Mr. Djafar, who is also an active member of the Division for Policy Development and Monitoring Network, which is itself a part of the Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (“ELSAM”), argued against capital punishment.
Mr. Djafar claimed that, based on a study of the effectiveness of the death penalty as a way of discouraging people from engaging in narcotics crimes, capital punishment did not prove to be any more effective than the threat of life imprisonment.
In both cases, the crime rate has been steadily increasing. Mr. Djafar thus believes that matters of ideology and religion should be set aside, as they relate to the death penalty, and that other methods and sentences should be tried.
Lawmaker Arsul Sani (Commission III), however, expressed the view that the death sentence was still required. Mr. Sani stated that although he respected differences in ideology with regard to the application of the death penalty in Indonesia, he wanted to remind Mr. Djafar that out of 52 studied countries, at least 36 of them still applied the death penalty. Mr. Djafar’s input is nevertheless to be brought into consideration during this lengthy deliberation process.
Taufiqulhadi, another Commission III member, added that the death penalty was still relevant in Indonesia in relation to extraordinary crimes such as those involving narcotics, due to the serious impact of such crimes upon the younger generation.
Lawmaker Dwi Ria Latifa (Commission III) also offered input into the discussion and related that while on a trip to the United Kingdom, a number of members of the RKUHP Working Committee had had a meeting with Amnesty International at which representatives of the famous international NGO had questioned Indonesia’s continued application of the death penalty, a policy with which they strongly disagreed.
Mrs. Latifa, a politician from the Indonesia Democratic Party of Struggle (“PDI-P”), described how the RKUHP Working Committee had drafted a statement relating to extraordinary crimes, such as those involving narcotics, and their impact upon the development of the younger generation. This statement sought to justify the death penalty in these cases and was sent to Amnesty International.
“However, they offered no response," concluded Mrs. Latifa.
(sp)