Attorney General: There's No Reason Not To Implement The Death Penalty For Corruptors

JAKARTA - Attorney General Burhanuddin said that the application of capital punishment to perpetrators of corruption has several problems, one of which is the rejection of human rights activities.

According to Burhanuddin, human rights activists have the support of the international community who encourage every country to abolish the regulation of the death penalty, on the pretext that the right to life is an absolute right that cannot be revoked by anyone except God.

"We can't just accept the refusal of these human rights activists. As long as the constitution provides juridical space and the crime is actually very detrimental to the nation and state, then there is no reason for us not to apply the death penalty," said Burhanuddin in a webinar held by the Faculty General Sudirman University Law, online quoted by Antara, Thursday, November 18.

Burhanuddin said it was necessary to realize that the existence of 'human rights' must go hand in hand with 'human rights'.

In other words, said Burhanuddin, the state will always protect the human rights of every person, but on the one hand that person also has an obligation to respect the rights of others.

The Attorney General explained that the laying of the basic legal pattern of Pancasila by emphasizing the existence of a balance between rights and obligations is a must in order to create an orderly life in society, nation and state.

"In Article 28 I paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the right to life is a right that cannot be reduced under any circumstances," he said.

However, continued Burhanuddin, if viewed from the systematic preparation of the articles that regulate the protection of human rights in the 1945 Constitution, it will appear that there is a limitation of human rights contained in the closing article.

The provisions in Article 28 J paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution have obligated everyone to respect the human rights of others in the orderly life of society, nation and state.

Then in the closing article on human rights, namely Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, it is stated that human rights can be limited and are not absolute.

"The state can deprive everyone of human rights if that person violates the law," said Burhanddin.

Thus, said the Attorney General, based on the provisions in Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, the imposition of capital punishment for corruptors who have been hindered by human rights issues can be enforced.

Another problem in the application of the death penalty to corruption, there is a view that requires the abolition of the death penalty with the argument that the death penalty does not reduce the quantity of crime.

This view was 'opposed' by Burhanuddin with a similar question "a contrario" namely: If the death penalty for corruptors is abolished, will there be a decrease in the quantity of corruption crimes?

"Given that there are no signs of corruption cases and the quantity is increasing, it is fitting that we carry out various kinds of legal breakthroughs as a form of effort to eradicate corruption," said Burhanuddin.

Even so, the Attorney General said, the application of the death penalty for corruptors needs to be studied more deeply to provide a deterrent effect.

So far, the Prosecutor's Office has made various law enforcement efforts, for example dropping heavy demands according to the level of crime, changing the approach pattern from "follow the suspect" to "follow the money" and "follow the asset", as well as impoverishing corruptors.

But it turns out that the deterrent effect only hits the convicts not to repeat the crime. This deterrent effect has not yet reached the community, because corruptors are taking turns and growing everywhere.

Previously, the Attorney General issued a discourse on the death penalty for corruptors, reflecting on two mega-corruption cases, namely the management of finance and investment funds at PT Asabri and PT Asuransi Jiwasraya.

The two corruption cases had a major impact on the wider community, especially the employees and members of the insurance company. The state losses incurred were very large, namely Rp. 16.8 trillion in the Jiwasraya case, and Rp. 22.78 trillion in the Asabri case.

In addition, there are the same two defendants in the two cases, namely Benny Tjockrosaputro and Heru Hidayat.