Setara Institute: There Is Always A Political Element Behind The Death Penalty Claim

JAKARTA - Setara Institute Research Director Halili Hasan suspects that there is a political element behind the death penalty charge against Heru Hidayat, a defendant in the alleged corruption case in the management of PT Asabri funds. The death penalty, said Halili, is not always based purely on legal considerations.

"I read that there is always politics behind the prosecution of the death penalty, so it is not always purely based on legal considerations," Halili said in a written statement, Monday, December 13.

Halili views the criminal charges against the President Director of PT Trada Alam Minerba (Tram) as an attempt by the Public Prosecutor of the AGO to get positive sentiment from the public in the midst of the Attorney General being hit by the issue of having 2 wives.

"For the prosecution of the death penalty for Heru Hidayat in the Asabri case, it seems like there is a motive to gain positive public sentiment, amid negative sentiments against the Attorney General because the Attorney General is alleged to have had two wives," he said.

Halili emphasized that the Setara Institute does not agree with the death penalty in any case, including corruption cases. The reason is that the death penalty will not reduce the number or index of corruption in Indonesia.

“In Setara's view, the death penalty is not the right approach to law enforcement in sentencing any case, including corruption cases. Impoverishment is the right punishment. Corruptors are not afraid of death, they are afraid of being poor, that's why the perpetrators commit corruption," he said.

Violation of Human Rights

In line with the Setara Institute, Amnesty International Indonesia also explicitly states that it opposes the death penalty for all cases without exception, including the death penalty charge against the alleged corruption defendant PT. Asabri Heru Hidayat.

Settlement of cases with the death penalty is a violation of the right to life as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"Indonesian people agree with the death penalty not necessarily because they are punitive or cruel, but it could be because the law enforcement system in Indonesia has many shortcomings so that people feel that those caught need to be severely punished," said Amnesty International's Executive Director, Usman Hamid separately.

This human rights activist even mentions that politicians and officials often repeat misleading claims that the death penalty and other cruel punishments have a deterrent effect. In fact, according to research results from various institutions, including Amnesty, the death penalty does not have a deterrent effect.

"What creates a deterrent effect is the certainty of punishment, not the severity of the punishment. So what should be done is fixing the legal system that still perpetuates impunity, not increasing the severity of punishment," said Usman.

Usman then appreciated that efforts to reduce the use of the death penalty in the draft criminal code (RKUHP) certainly deserve appreciation. However, the articles that stipulate the death penalty as an alternative punishment still give judges a lot of discretion.

"Article 100 states that the judge can impose a death penalty with a probationary period of 10 years. If it depends on the judge's decision, it is not certain that there will be a reduction in the use of the death penalty," said Usman.

Moreover, according to Amnesty International's annual death penalty report, 108 countries have completely removed the death penalty from their laws, and a total of 144 have abolished the death penalty in their legal practice.

The number of death penalty sentences also decreased by 36 percent from 2019 to 2020, and the number of executions also decreased by 26 percent.

"Indonesia should see this global trend and be aware that the death penalty is a cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment and human dignity," said Usman.