Corruption is one of the biggest problems facing Indonesian society today. Corrupt practices undermine economic structures, destroy public trust in state institutions, and create widening social inequality. Considering that the negative impact resulting from corruption is so large, it is not uncommon for discourses to appear that propose the death penalty for perpetrators of corruption, especially those involving large amounts of state or regional funds. However, in this case, is the death penalty for corruptors an effective solution, or is it a setback in the Indonesian justice system?
Supporting the death penalty for corruptors
Proponents of the death penalty for corruptors argue that this strict and extreme punishment is considered to have a stronger deterrent effect. Corruption is often carried out with careful planning and malicious intent to enrich oneself, while the losses caused can be enormous, even causing long-term social and economic damage. The death penalty is considered a form of sanction that is proportional to the damage caused by acts of corruption.
On the other hand, Indonesian people who have long been frustrated by the high level of corruption often see the death penalty as a decisive step to clean the country of these practices. This can also be seen as an effort to restore public trust in the judicial and law enforcement systems, which have often been considered weak in handling corruption cases.
Challenges to the application of the death penaltyÂ
However, there are a number of serious challenges that need to be considered if Indonesia decides to apply the death penalty to corruptors. One of them is the issue of justice and the uneven application of the law. In a complex legal system, there is a risk of error in determining who really deserves the death penalty. The large number of corruption cases involving high-ranking state officials, large businessmen, or powerful individuals often causes injustices in the legal process, such as political intervention, manipulation of evidence, or different treatment of perpetrators based on their social status.
Furthermore, Indonesian law must also consider the basic principles of human rights (HAM). The State of Indonesia is part of an international community committed to respect for human rights. The application of the death penalty, although justified in some very serious cases, remains a controversial issue in the context of human rights, especially when applied on a broader scale, such as corruption cases. In many countries, the application of the death penalty has begun to be questioned because of the potential for fatal mistakes that cannot be corrected if someone is executed without a truly fair process.
The effectiveness of the death penalty in eradicating corruptionÂ
We also need to ask whether the death penalty is really effective in eradicating corruption. In some countries that have implemented the death penalty for corruptors, there is no evidence to show that it significantly reduces corruption rates. Corruption often occurs due to systemic factors, such as weak supervision, bureaucratic non-transparency, and a low culture of integrity. The death penalty, although very strict, does not necessarily address the root causes of corruption.
In Indonesia, even though there is a fairly harsh law against corruption, corrupt practices are still rampant in various sectors. Therefore, the main focus must be directed more toward improving the legal system and law enforcement to be more transparent, as well as strengthening the anti-corruption culture among public officials and the community in general.
Alternative solutions to strengthen the eradication of corruptionÂ
