UNAIR NEWS – Faculty of Law Universitas Airlangga (UNAIR) held a public discussion on “Death Penalty Abolishment Effort in Criminal Code Amendment” on Friday, May 11. The discussion was a collaboration of Human Rights Studies and Impartial Institute who also moves on Human right issue.
The controversies on death sentence abolishment have been popular in public, especially for the lawmakers. The dispute is like criticizing the implementation of death penalty if it is correct when it cannot prevent them from doing the crime. The discussion was also a response on a dispute in Jakarta few days ago when there was a rumor on third death penalty session.
The discussion was interesting, it was led by an expert such as Woro Winardi from Impartial Institute, Wachid Habibullah from LBH Surabaya, Dr. Otto Syamsudin from Komnas HAM RI and Prof. Didik Hendro from UNAIR Faculty of Law .
During the discussion, the pros and cons on death penalty abolishment were discussed because criminal law is as ultimum remidium as discussed by Winardi and Prof.Didik. Then it was followed with determining sides, pros or cons.
“Death sentence is indeed needed but there are some conditions which nullify death penalty. The mechanism is through the draft bill itself. The mechanism can be put in government regulation, as the law cannot arrange it concretely. One of them cannot be applied , there is no synchronizations,” said Prof. Didik.
Human rights violation has its consequence. In criminal legal process, even confiscation can be categorized as human right violation. But their action was backed up by LAWS. On the other hand, the criminal itself has violated human rights, so there were no reasons to protect their human rights. The one needs attention is the victim, country, people and individuals.
“The violator of human rights is the government. There are authorities, either legal or power, and they violate the human rights,” said Dr. Otto.
Dr. Otto said that something which violates the human rights will be easier to see through the relations of state actor, non state actor and corporation. Happened in an operation or not, the main thing to consider is the victim. Various cases have happened, but there is still no clear legal centainty. There are many legal processes which complicate the law enforcement and human rights protection in Indonesia.
Regarding how death penalty implemented well, the legal authorities should improve it. The law should also consider the torture. It should be minimized and it is still performed humanely. The problem is there is still no mechanism in KUHP draft bill.
Abdul Rahman Usman, a student of Law Master program responded to Prof. Didik. Abdul said that judges are only humans, when they have sentenced somebody to death and one day they realized the made a mistake, it will give a psychological effect to them. When we use the context of death penalty as human rights violation, then imprisonment and castration are also human rights violation.
“To avoid incorrect verdict, professionalism is needed. Police force and attorneys must be professional and differ material criminal law and formal one (authoritative norms),” said Prof. Didik.
Prof. Didik concluded that death penalty is needed but should be implemented selectively. Therefore, the government needs to improve the law enforcers’ professionalism to perform well and give fair trial for the victim and the criminal. (*)
Author: Ahalla Tsauro
Editor : Dilan Salsabila