•    HOME   
•    NEWS   
•    BUSINESS   
•    INTERNATIONAL   
•    TECH   
•    SPORTS   
•    LIFE & TIMES   
•    OPINION   
•    MY JAKARTA   
•    BLOGS   

Amid the latest graft scandal, calls to mete out the death penalty to those found guilty of corruption are growing louder.

But government officials and political parties are split over its effectiveness as a deterrent.

Mahfud MD, the chief judge of the Constitutional Court, said on Tuesday that he agreed with using capital punishment in corruption cases, but that judges and prosecutors needed to be brave enough to implement it.

“The death sentence has been applied for crimes such as premeditated murder, drugs and terrorism,” he said. “So I support its application to corruptors.”

But Mahfud said that under the law, corruption only led to the death penalty in some circumstances. “A death sentence can be applied for those guilty of corruption when the state is in a crisis condition, such as during a natural disaster,” he said.

Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the amended 1999 Anti-Corruption Law introduced capital punishment for corruption committed under special circumstances, including during an economic or monetary crisis, an emergency, a national disaster or in the aftermath of rioting on a national scale.

Justice and Human Rights Minister Patrialis Akbar agreed that certain factors needed to be considered.

“Someone could just be mismanaging an institution,” he said. “For example, a minister who is naive and signs documents without reading them that later lead to state losses that he does not benefit from does not deserve to be sentenced to death. So it depends on the situation.”

Patrialis said that so far there had been no corruption cases when the state was in crisis.

Golkar Party lawmaker Setya Novanto said he agreed with imposing the death sentence in cases related to tax-related corruption.

“We agree with the death sentence for tax corruptors,” he said. “However, before being implemented, the tax institution should be restructured.”

But Benny Kabur Harman, the chairman of House of Representatives Commission III, which oversees legal affairs, said he doubted the effectiveness of using the death penalty on people convicted of corruption.

“I think it’s more important to put them in jail rather than kill them,” he said.

Benny emphasized the importance of investigating the cases and getting the assets back, rather than sentencing the perpetrator to death.

The Attorney General’s Office also has said recovering state assets is its focus.

“What’s important is to recover state money,” Marwan Effendy, the AGO’s deputy for special crimes, said recently.

“The article carrying the death sentence is mentioned in indictments, but it does not mean the prosecution will demand it.”

Viva Yoga Mauladi, of the National Mandate Party (PAN), disagreed. He claimed China’s use of the death penalty in corruption cases proved its effectiveness, with corruption declining since it had been applied.

“If we implement that, too, our corruption cases will decline. Because people are afraid of the death penalty they will be sure to stay on the right track. It will make us more disciplined,” Viva said.

Indonesia has about 100 inmates on death row but none have been found guilty of graft.

In the post-Suharto era, the heaviest sentence against a graft convict was a 20-year prison term handed down in 2008 to senior prosecutor Urip Tri Gunawan, who was caught taking $660,000 in bribes from businesswoman Artalyta Suryani.

 

Additional reporting by Anita Rachman. .