Indonesia: When the debate over the death sentence continues

The Nasruddin Zulkarnaen murder trial seemed to approach a climax when prosecutors demanded the death sentence for defendants recently.

While the judge has yet to announce his final verdict, debates over the issue of the death penalty have come up, raising pros and cons throughout the media. Does this country still need this kind of punishment?

No one would want to be in the position of former Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) chief Antasari Azhar, former South Jakarta Police chief Williardi Wizard or media businessman Sigid Haryo Wibisono.

Antasari allegedly masterminded the murder of Nasruddin, who was shot to dead in March last year, with help from Williardi, who reportedly recruited some hit men and Sigid, who allegedly provided the funding.

There is nothing more dramatic, perhaps on our planet, than the moral dilemma of the death penalty.

Hollywood filmmakers have even brought death penalty story into the big screen. Dead Man Walking, for example, is about Sister Helen Prejean (played by Susan Sarandon) who befriends a prisoner, Matthew Poncelet (Sean Penn). Poncelet is on death row for murder and rape.

Poncelet claims to be innocent and somehow, Sister Helen trusts in him. This film gives a frank look at both sides of the death penalty debate.

Many countries, including Indonesia, as well as some countries in Asia and several states in the US still have capital punishment, while the practice has been abolished in Europe and Australia.

The implementation of the death penalty in Indonesia has sparked heated debate among numerous people.

According to University of Indonesia legal expert Rudi Satrio Mukantardjo, Indonesia has been familiar with the death penalty since around 1920s. Convicts were once executed by hanging, he said. "But this method was later abolished because it led to a painful death," Rudi told Sunday Post.

"The government then started using a firing squad because it caused less pain than the previous method."

The legal framework for the death penalty is stipulated in the Criminal Code and it can be imposed to perpetrators of corruption, terrorism, drugs or other crimes as stipulated in the Code. Rudi himself supports the death penalty, and said Indonesia required execution to prevent serious crimes.

"Anyone who has committed a serious crime can be considered sadistic and mean. They deserve punishment. We have to think also about the rights of the families of the victims."

Rudi said the death penalty was one of the most effective deterrents for would-be criminals, adding that it was needed to prevent other members of society from committing crimes.

Amrozi, Mukhlas, and Imam Samudra, 38, were both executed by firing squad near their prison on Nusakambangan Island for their roles in the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people, including 88 Australians. 3 days before the convicted bombers were executed, they were moved into isolation cells.

On the day, after being tied to posts and offered blindfolds, which they refused, the bombers were shot by a police firing squad. Their bodies were later taken for autopsy, after being declared dead at the execution site. Prosecutors handed the bodies over to helicopter crews to deliver them to their home villages. According to the Attorney General's Office, 13 of 121 people on death row were executed during 2009.

Even though more and more countries are abolishing death sentence, it wouldn't be a big deal for Indonesia to continue to impose this penalty, Rudi said. "Every country has its own philosophy and view, so it's no problem if Indonesia continues to impose this type of punishment."

Rudi is not the only one who backs death sentence. Lawmakers, officials and antigraft activists have often thrown supports behind the death penalty in corruption cases because corruption remains a major problem here.

Lawmaker Gayus Lumbuun of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) once said the KPK law was open to the possibility of seeking the death penalty for corruption, adding that it was necessary for the state to create clearer regulations.

Article 2 of the law on the KPK, he said, stipulates that those found guilty of corruption can be subject to capital punishment in cases of war, natural disaster and crises, adding that a judge needs clearer guidance for meting out such punishments.

Human rights groups and activists, however, have voiced their strong oppositions to the death penalty, saying that it is the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

They claimed that capital punishment is a breach of the Indonesian Constitution, which upholds the right to life. They also claim it contravenes many of the international conventions on human rights that Indonesia has ratified.

"Life is given by God. He's the one with the right to take it. We, humans, do not have the right to decide the time of death of someone," Human Rights Working Group executive director Rafendi Djamin.

Statistics also demonstrate that the death penalty has little effect on decreasing crime rates, he added. "The time frame, from the sentencing to the execution day, is too long. Prisoners sometimes have to wait for years before they are executed. This only adds to their suffering. This is so inhuman," he said.

"It is not the severity of the punishment that acts as a deterrent, but the certainty that perpetrators are convicted after a transparent trial, a legal process that can determine guilt based on evidence."

Usman Hamid, the coordinator of the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS), stated he was against the death penalty because the legal system in Indonesia was not free from corruption.

"There is still judicial corruption here. Because of this corruption those who should be convicted can be freed or sentenced lightly, while those who are innocent may be convicted."

The death penalty, he said, is bound to be handed down to the wrong person because criminal investigations often lack professionalism.

"As a result of poor investigations a man is convicted for a crime and is later executed. Eventually new evidence clears his name, proving that he was in fact innocent, but it is already too late. We can't bring him back to life," said Usman.

Rights groups have suggested that life sentences are harsh enough for those facing the death penalty.

Usman said there was a contradiction in the implementation of death penalty.

In a case where an Indonesian immigrant worker, who is sentenced to death in a neighboring country, for instance, Indonesia struggles to free the worker from the charges, saying that the penalty goes against human rights.

"On the contrary, our government still applies capital punishment. So, there is a contradiction here on how Indonesia handles and acts in death penalty cases at home and in the international stage," Usman said.

Meanwhile, there has been a talk about reviewing the Criminal Code to examine whether or not the death penalty contradicts principles of human rights and the Constitution.

Although the revision might not completely abolish the death penalty, Usman said, it had more "survival spirit" than the current one.

Ending the death penalty once and for all would finally prove Indonesia's commitment to humanity and civilization, he added. At the moment it seems like this will be a never-ending debate.

Source: Jakarta Post,January, 24, 2010