Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Ari Pramuditya, Rofiq Hidayat
Discussion on death penalty. Photo by: RFQ
Despite the various arguments against capital punishment, the imposition of the death penalty is still applicable based on Indonesia’s prevailing laws. Indeed, the draft of the new Indonesian Criminal Code (Rancangan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana – “RKUHP”), which is currently being discussed by lawmakers and the government, reaffirms the death penalty as a form of available punishment in the country.
Syarif Hidayatullah and Prof. Siti Musdah Mulia, postgraduate lecturers at Indonesia’s National Islamic University (UIN) have nevertheless proposed eight reasons for the abolition of the death penalty and for erasing it from the country’s prevailing laws. Firstly, the death penalty runs contrary to the essence of all religions and beliefs, which teach the importance life as the greatest blessing from God. In the Islamic religion, for example, adherents are taught to respect human dignity as the best reward from God.
“The death penalty constitutes a usurping of the power of God. No one has the right to negate someone else’s life but God himself,” Professor Mulia stated during a discussion entitled The Death Penalty and the Revision of the Indonesian Criminal Code, which was held in Jakarta on Wednesday, 6 January 2016.
Secondly, the death penalty is not seen as being in line with the values of democracy. Indeed, plenty of research has revealed that the death penalty is predominantly applied in less democratic countries. Conversely, many democratic states have already abolished capital punishment. Thirdly, the application of the death penalty can be considered a violation of human rights, as it has the effect of dehumanizing people.
The fourth argument presented by the pair is that the death penalty basically constitutes a form of oppression. The long history of the death penalty shows that capital punishment has often been used as a tool of repression against pro-democracy groups by authoritarian regimes. Fifthly, it is has become common knowledge that the death penalty is often used as a weapon of political retaliation.
“For instance in the case of former Pakistani leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was executed on 4 April 1979 for killing members of the political opposition. Thus, the imposition of the death penalty was driven by political intrigue, rather than by any considerations of building justice and prosperity,” the Professor stated.
The sixth reason presented against the death penalty was that it is often wrongly applied to people who are subsequently proven not guilty. Consequently, executions are often carried out carelessly, without meeting the standards of compelling and fair evidence. The seventh reason is that the death penalty is also often used as an effective tool to eliminate whistleblowers and those who expose corruption in certain cases, most pertinently in cases involving classified information.
Finally, the imposition of the death penalty has not been proven to have any deterrent effect as regards crime. In fact, the serious crime rates are not lower in countries which apply the death penalty. “Studies of countries that still impose the death penalty have proved that the crime rate in these countries has continued to increase significantly each year,” asserted the Professor, who is also a winner of the Yap Thiam Hien award.
Al Aref, Executive Director for human-rights watchdog Impartial, added that the application of the death penalty by the Indonesian legal system was questionable, owing to the current depravity of the national legal system, which is riddled with corrupt law enforcers and wrongful arrests.
On this basis, Indonesia, as a civilized nation, should erase the death penalty from all of its existing laws. “Such removal would be of great significance in terms of human-rights protection,” Aref said.
Also supporting the abolition of the death penalty was Anggara Suwahju, Chief Executive of Institute Criminal for Justice Reform (“ICJR”), who stated that at least 26 articles in the RKUHP supported the application of the death penalty. According to Suwahju, the majority of the country's parliamentary politicians have approved the inclusion of the death penalty in the new RKUHP. In fact though, Suwahju explained that the application of the death penalty ran contrary to notions of human rights.
“The continued application of the death penalty, as set out in the RKUHP, will not minimize the actual problems in practice,” Mr. Suwahju explained.
Lucia Ratih Kusumadewi, a sociology lecturer for the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Indonesia proffered another view. Kusumadewi argued that the death penalty’s inclusion in the RKUHP was down to the political will of the current government, thus the ongoing application of the penalty was assured.
Kusumadewi argued that criminal law was essentially a tool which is used to achieve goals, namely public protection and the rehabilitation of criminal offenders. “Whereas the application of the death penalty is obviously aimed at eliminating public protections and of negating any possibility of offenders being rehabilitated,” Mrs. Kusumadewi concluded.
(rfs/sp)
Ari Pramuditya, Rofiq Hidayat
Discussion on death penalty. Photo by: RFQ
Despite the various arguments against capital punishment, the imposition of the death penalty is still applicable based on Indonesia’s prevailing laws. Indeed, the draft of the new Indonesian Criminal Code (Rancangan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana – “RKUHP”), which is currently being discussed by lawmakers and the government, reaffirms the death penalty as a form of available punishment in the country.
Syarif Hidayatullah and Prof. Siti Musdah Mulia, postgraduate lecturers at Indonesia’s National Islamic University (UIN) have nevertheless proposed eight reasons for the abolition of the death penalty and for erasing it from the country’s prevailing laws. Firstly, the death penalty runs contrary to the essence of all religions and beliefs, which teach the importance life as the greatest blessing from God. In the Islamic religion, for example, adherents are taught to respect human dignity as the best reward from God.
“The death penalty constitutes a usurping of the power of God. No one has the right to negate someone else’s life but God himself,” Professor Mulia stated during a discussion entitled The Death Penalty and the Revision of the Indonesian Criminal Code, which was held in Jakarta on Wednesday, 6 January 2016.
Secondly, the death penalty is not seen as being in line with the values of democracy. Indeed, plenty of research has revealed that the death penalty is predominantly applied in less democratic countries. Conversely, many democratic states have already abolished capital punishment. Thirdly, the application of the death penalty can be considered a violation of human rights, as it has the effect of dehumanizing people.
The fourth argument presented by the pair is that the death penalty basically constitutes a form of oppression. The long history of the death penalty shows that capital punishment has often been used as a tool of repression against pro-democracy groups by authoritarian regimes. Fifthly, it is has become common knowledge that the death penalty is often used as a weapon of political retaliation.
“For instance in the case of former Pakistani leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was executed on 4 April 1979 for killing members of the political opposition. Thus, the imposition of the death penalty was driven by political intrigue, rather than by any considerations of building justice and prosperity,” the Professor stated.
The sixth reason presented against the death penalty was that it is often wrongly applied to people who are subsequently proven not guilty. Consequently, executions are often carried out carelessly, without meeting the standards of compelling and fair evidence. The seventh reason is that the death penalty is also often used as an effective tool to eliminate whistleblowers and those who expose corruption in certain cases, most pertinently in cases involving classified information.
Finally, the imposition of the death penalty has not been proven to have any deterrent effect as regards crime. In fact, the serious crime rates are not lower in countries which apply the death penalty. “Studies of countries that still impose the death penalty have proved that the crime rate in these countries has continued to increase significantly each year,” asserted the Professor, who is also a winner of the Yap Thiam Hien award.
Al Aref, Executive Director for human-rights watchdog Impartial, added that the application of the death penalty by the Indonesian legal system was questionable, owing to the current depravity of the national legal system, which is riddled with corrupt law enforcers and wrongful arrests.
On this basis, Indonesia, as a civilized nation, should erase the death penalty from all of its existing laws. “Such removal would be of great significance in terms of human-rights protection,” Aref said.
Also supporting the abolition of the death penalty was Anggara Suwahju, Chief Executive of Institute Criminal for Justice Reform (“ICJR”), who stated that at least 26 articles in the RKUHP supported the application of the death penalty. According to Suwahju, the majority of the country's parliamentary politicians have approved the inclusion of the death penalty in the new RKUHP. In fact though, Suwahju explained that the application of the death penalty ran contrary to notions of human rights.
“The continued application of the death penalty, as set out in the RKUHP, will not minimize the actual problems in practice,” Mr. Suwahju explained.
Lucia Ratih Kusumadewi, a sociology lecturer for the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Indonesia proffered another view. Kusumadewi argued that the death penalty’s inclusion in the RKUHP was down to the political will of the current government, thus the ongoing application of the penalty was assured.
Kusumadewi argued that criminal law was essentially a tool which is used to achieve goals, namely public protection and the rehabilitation of criminal offenders. “Whereas the application of the death penalty is obviously aimed at eliminating public protections and of negating any possibility of offenders being rehabilitated,” Mrs. Kusumadewi concluded.
(rfs/sp)