Prison Penalty In Providing A Determination Effect For Criminal Actions Of Corruption

The case of corruption as a phenomenon of deviation from social, cultural, social and state life has many scientists and philosophers who study and criticize it. One of the world's famous philosophers is Aristotle who has formulated what he calls moral corruption. Moral corruption refers to various forms of constitution that have deviated, so that the rulers of the regime are included in the democratic system, no longer led by law, but no longer serving themselves. The problem in this research is How Effectiveness of Imprisonment for Criminal Acts of Corruption is? and Does Imprisonment Can Have a Deterrent Effect for Perpetrators of Criminal Acts of Corruption? This paper is a normative legal research. This normative legal research method is used because the approach in this paper is carried out by means of a case approach and a statute approach.
The prison sentence is threatened for someone who has committed a crime. Imprisonment itself: life imprisonment and temporary imprisonment or imprisonment for a certain time. The temporary prison sentence is a minimum of one day and a maximum of fifteen years, however, the temporary imprisonment may be imposed for twenty years if the crime committed by a person is punishable by death or life imprisonment, or is threatened with imprisonment of 20 (twenty) years or if there is a combination of several criminal acts (samenlop) Should the perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption deserve the death penalty, because being given the death penalty will provide a deterrent effect and also be a lesson for others not to do the same thing (corruption).  in general, almost no judges impose the death penalty because it is associated with aggravating or mitigating reasons and the mitigating factor is far more dominant in terms of the highest sentence limit, education, and others.

The prison sentence is threatened for someone who has committed a crime. Imprisonment itself: life imprisonment and temporary imprisonment or imprisonment for a certain time. The temporary prison sentence is a minimum of one day and a maximum of fifteen years, however, the temporary imprisonment may be imposed for twenty years if the crime committed by a person is punishable by death or life imprisonment, or is threatened with imprisonment of 20 (twenty)  proven to be unable to solve the problem of corruption in society. Thus, the handling must also use extraordinary methods (extra-ordinary) 6 . Imprisonment is a last resort (ultimum remidium) in the applicable criminal law system, for that in its implementation it must refer to human rights. 7 Based on Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, it is stated that, Anyone who unlawfully commits an act of enriching himself or another person or a corporation that can harm the State's finances or the State's economy, shall be sentenced to imprisonment. with life imprisonment or imprisonment for a minimum of 4 (four years) and a maximum of 20 (twenty) years and a fine of at least Rp. 200,000,000 (two hundred million rupiah) and a maximum of Rp. 1,000,000,000 (one billion rupiah). 8 The stipulation of the criminal act of corruption as an extraordinary crime in criminal law policy in Indonesia means that in an effort to combat corruption a special criminal law is needed that deviates from the general rules of criminal law regulated in the Criminal Code (KUHP) as well as the procedural law which is regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). The case of corruption is an extraordinary criminal act and its settlement must take precedence over other cases. 9 Although the Constitution has stated that the punishment for a person who commits a criminal act of corruption is life imprisonment, the reality is very much different, not infrequently court decisions in imposing very light decisions and even acquitting the perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption from all punishments. This is very unfortunate, even though the court is the front line in upholding justice, but it actually destroys the sense of justice. How is it possible that corruption can be eradicated if the punishment for the perpetrators of corruption tends to be light, and will not provide a deterrent effect for the perpetrators.

years or if there is a combination of several criminal acts
This condition is feared will make the purpose of punishment is not achieved. In fact, the costs incurred by the state to process law enforcement are quite expensive. Seeing this reality, it is natural for people to think that there is a political game in handling corruption cases.
Based on the description above, the problems that will be discussed in this paper can be formulated How Effective is Imprisonment for Criminal Acts of Corruption?, Can a prison sentence have a deterrent effect for perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption?
The novelty of this study is about prison sentences in providing a decisive effect for criminal acts of corruption. Determination of corruption as an extraordinary crime requires efforts to eradicate corruption. One of the punishments for corruption is imprisonment. Regarding the effectiveness of the prison which is not very effective. This paper is a normative legal research. This normative legal research method is used because the approach in this paper is carried out by means of a case approach and a statute approach.

The Crime of Corruption and Something Behind It
Corruption is a problem that exists in almost all countries in the world. Corruption is a global problem that concerns everyone. Likewise, what happened in Indonesia, the problem of corruption is already an extraordinary crime (extra ordinary crimes), so the demand for the availability of extraordinary and sophisticated legal instruments and institutions that are truly capable of handling every case of corruption cannot be resolved. again. All Indonesian people agree that corruption must be prevented and eradicated from the homeland, because corruption has been proven to have afflicted the economic rights and social rights of the Indonesian people. 10 Corruption in Indonesia occurs systemically, massively and structured so that it is not only detrimental to the state's financial condition, but also violates the social and economic rights of the community at large. In accordance with the opinion of Lord Acton (John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton) in his letter to Bishop Mandell Creihgton wrote a phrase that connects corruption with power, namely "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" that power tends to corruption and absolute power tends to corruption. absolute. 11 This expression is the current condition in Indonesia. If we look at the current journey of eradicating Corruption Crimes, we cannot separate it from the important role of the Judiciary in law enforcement in Indonesia. Judges as law enforcers have the main task in the judicial field, namely to receive, examine, decide and settle every case addressed to them, such a task can be stated that judges are the core implementation that functionally carries out judicial power as mandated by Law Number 48 of 2008 regarding Judicial Power.
Corruption cases do not only occur at the central level, in the regions corruption cases are almost the same as those at the central level. This view is true by looking at the reality that developed after the Soeharto government, it turns out that corruption is not shrinking but is actually increasing, and the perpetrators start from the top (central) level to the lower (regional) level. The reformation era can be said to be the cause of the increasingly widespread corruption practices down to the lower levels. Although it must also be believed that the democratic system brings wide open opportunities for eradicating corruption, at least various forms of irregularities are easily exposed and mediated. 12 Corruption can occur when there is opportunity and desire at the same time, which can start from any aspect in the form of a bribe being offered to an official, an official asking for or even extorting facilitation money, a person who bribes bribes because he wants something that is not his right, and he bribe by ignoring the rules. 13 The more developed the era / human civilization, the more developed their lifestyle. Today we are in the midst of a very advanced material life. The measure of a person referred to as rich or successful is when he has a certain amount of wealth that is visible in his daily life. When someone occupies a space to be able to access wealth, then someone will do it to the fullest. In this world, many people are easily tempted by wealth. The perception of wealth as a measure of one's success, causes a person to pursue wealth without taking into account how the wealth was obtained. 14 According to Aziz Syamsuddin, there are various reasons behind someone committing acts of corruption, including: 1. Weak religious, moral, and ethical education. 2. There are no harsh sanctions against perpetrators of corruption. 3. The absence of a transparent government system (good governance). 4. Economic factors 5. Poor management and the absence of effective and efficient supervision. 6. Modernization that causes a shift in the values of life that develop in society. 15 Corruption acts are carried out starting from mark ups for procurement of goods and services, procurement of goods and services that violate procedures, abuse of authority, bribes, giving or receiving gratuities, use of funds that are not in accordance with budget postings and others, all of which have the potential to cause financial harm. the country and the country's economy. 16

Efforts to Eradicate Criminal Acts of Corruption and All Its Obstacles
The problem of corruption is not a new problem in legal and economic matters for a country because the problem of corruption has existed for thousands of years, both in developed and developing countries including Indonesia. Corruption has creeped in and slipped in various forms, or modus operandi so that it undermines state finances, the state economy and harms the interests of the community. 17 Efforts to eradicate corruption have become a global problem, not only national or regional. Corruption is an act that can not only harm the state's finances but can also cause economic losses to the people. 18 The crime of corruption that is developing in the world in general and in Indonesia in particular is very concerning, so it is very necessary for the law as an enforcer of justice to save the country from losses and uphold the people's right to get good results from development that is free from corruption. 19 Through the Indonesian Corrupption Watch (ICW) Investigation Division researcher Wana Alamsyah said there were 576 corruption cases throughout 2017. This figure has increased compared to 2016 with a total of 482 cases with an increase in state losses of 6.5 trillion and bribes of 211 billion compared to 2016. The handling of corruption cases in 2017 experienced a significant increase in state losses, which rose from 1.5 trillion in 2016 to 6.5 trillion in 2017. large state losses, which is around Rp. 2.3 trillion. Within a year the number of suspects also increased from 1,101 people to 1,298 people. 20 Efforts to eradicate corruption, which have not been running as expected, are clearly related to prevention efforts which have not met the expectations of the community. In Indonesia's positive law, it has actually regulated efforts to prevent and eradicate corruption, namely in the Criminal Code (KUHP) which then in urgent circumstances enacted Law Number 24 of 1960 concerning Investigation, Prosecution and Examination of Corruption Crimes which later replaced by Law no. 3 of 1971. Then, there was a development regarding criminal acts of corruption involving administrators and entrepreneurs, 21 The law was deemed no longer appropriate so that Law no. 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes replacing the previous Law. Then, again, the Law underwent changes and was ratified by Law no. 20 of 2001 concerning amendments to Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes. 22 There are several efforts made to eradicate corruption, including: a. Strategy Preventif, This strategy must be made and implemented by being directed at the things that cause corruption. Every cause that is indicated must be made preventive efforts, so as to minimize the causes of corruption. Besides that, it is necessary to make efforts that can minimize opportunities for corruption and this effort involves many parties in its implementation in order to be successful and able to prevent corruption.
b. Strategy Deduktif, This strategy must be made and implemented especially with the aim that if an act of corruption has already occurred, then the act will be known in the shortest possible time and as accurately as possible, so that it can be followed up appropriately. With this premise, there are many systems that must be addressed, so that these systems will be able to function as rules that are quite precise in giving signals when an act of corruption occurs. This really requires the existence of various disciplines, be it law, economics or political and social sciences. c. Strategy Represif, This strategy must be developed and implemented, especially with the aim of providing appropriate legal sanctions quickly and appropriately to parties involved in corruption. With this premise, the process of handling corruption from the stage of investigation, investigation and prosecution to the judiciary needs to be reviewed to be perfected in all its aspects, so that the handling process can be carried out quickly and precisely. However, its implementation must be done in an integrated manner. 23 Efforts to eradicate corruption is not an easy thing. Although various efforts have been made to eradicate corruption, there are still some obstacles in eradicating corruption. Hand arrest operations (OTT) are often carried out by the KPK, the demands and decisions handed down by law enforcement are also quite harsh, but corruption is still being carried out. There is even an opinion that those who get OTT are people who are "unlucky or unlucky". Obstacles in eradicating corruption can be classified as follows: a. Structural Barriers, namely obstacles that stem from state and government administration practices that make the handling of corruption crimes not run properly. Included in this group are: sectoral and institutional egoism which leads to the application of as much funds as possible for the sector and its agencies without taking into account the national needs as a whole and trying to cover up irregularities in the sector and the agencies concerned; not yet functioning effectively supervision function; weak coordination between supervisory officers and law enforcement officers; and the weakness of the internal control system which has a positive correlation with various irregularities and inefficiencies in the management of state assets and the low quality of public services.. b. Cultural Barriers, namely obstacles that originate from negative habits that develop in society. Included in this group are: there is still a "reluctant attitude" and tolerance among government officials that can hinder the handling of criminal acts of corruption; lack of openness of agency leaders so that they often seem tolerant and protect perpetrators of corruption, intervention of the executive, legislative and judiciary in handling corruption crimes, low commitment to dealing with corruption firmly and thoroughly, and the permissive attitude (ignorant) of the majority of the community towards efforts to eradicate corruption. 24 c. Instrumental Barriers, namely obstacles that stem from the lack of supporting instruments in the form of laws and regulations that make the handling of corruption crimes not run properly. Included in this group are: there are still overlapping laws and regulations21 that give rise to corrupt actions in the form of inflating funds within government agencies; the absence of a "single identification number" or an identification that applies to all public needs ( to reduce opportunities for misuse by every member of the community; weak law enforcement in dealing with corruption; and the difficulty of proving corruption. d. Management Barriers, namely the obstacles that stem from the neglect or nonapplication of good management principles (high commitment is carried out in a fair, transparent and accountable manner) which makes the handling of corruption crimes not run properly. Included in this group are: lack of commitment by management (Government) in following up on the results of supervision; weak coordination between the supervisory apparatus as well as between the supervisory apparatus and law enforcement officers; lack of information technology support in the administration of government; the non-independence of a supervisory organization; the lack of professionalism of most of the supervisory officers; lack of support for monitoring systems and procedures in dealing with corruption, as well as inadequate staffing systems including the recruitment system, low "formal salary" for civil servants, performance appraisal and reward and punishment. 25 Broadly speaking, crime prevention efforts can be divided into two, namely through the penal route, namely by using criminal law and the non-penal route, which is resolved outside of criminal law by non-penal means. Efforts to overcome crime through the penal route are more focused on the repressive nature (suppression/suppression/eradication) after the crime has occurred, while non-penal is more preventive (prevention). 26

The Effectiveness of Imprisonment for Criminal Acts of Corruption
The Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia is a state based on law, not on power alone. This is emphasized in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia which states that the State of Indonesia is a state of law. This means that all aspects of national and state life must be based on applicable legal provisions. Thus, everything must comply with legal provisions as a comprehensive effort to realize Indonesia as a democratic legal state, upholding human rights, ensuring the upholding of the rule of law with no exceptions to anyone in the eyes of the law. In order to keep the legal regulations going straight and accepted by the whole community, the existing legal regulations must be appropriate and should not conflict with the principles of justice of the community.. 27 The criminal law that regulates corruption is based on a special criminal law, in addition to containing material criminal law, it also contains formal criminal law. Corruption Crimes, Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, and accompanied by Law Number 28 of 1999 concerning State Administrators that are Clean and Free from Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism. While general law still applies criminal law in the Criminal Code and formal criminal law. 28 Prison is not a place for revenge. However, prison is also not a place for criminals who can enjoy privileges including getting remission. Punishing a corrupt person to the maximum can not only be a lesson for convicted corruptors, but also a lesson for millions of people out there not to commit or undo the intention of robbing state money (corruption). 29 Imprisonment is still recognized as effective in preventing or fostering criminals, but it is time to develop punishments that are not oriented towards imprisonment. 30 In the context of the effectiveness of statutory laws, according to Achmad Ali, that whenever a rule or law is deemed ineffective, the answer is, of course, that most of the community members do not obey it. However, if most of the community members seem to obey the rules or laws, then the measure of the quality of the effectiveness of the rules or laws can still be questioned. The more citizens who obey a law only with compliance and identification only, it means that the quality of the effectiveness of the rule or law is still low; On the other hand, the more citizens who obey the rules or laws with internalized obedience, the higher the quality of the effectiveness of the rules or laws. Imprisonment is the second main crime after the death penalty. The prison sentence is threatened for someone who has committed a crime. Imprisonment itself: life imprisonment and temporary imprisonment or imprisonment for a certain time. The temporary prison sentence is a minimum of one day and a maximum of fifteen years, however, the temporary imprisonment may be imposed for twenty years if the criminal act committed by the person is punishable by death or life imprisonment, or is threatened with imprisonment of 20 (twenty) years or if there is a combination of several criminal acts (samenlop). 31 Imprisonment is one of the main crimes that limit the freedom of movement of prisoners and their implementation by placing prisoners in correctional institutions. With the intention that others are not affected by the evil nature of the prisoner; so that young correctional officers carry out coaching for the prisoners themselves; as well as so that prisoners do not repeat their actions after being released from prison and also so that they do not run away, and as a form of accountability for violating the law and as evidence for victims or victims' families that the government pays attention to their rights as citizens that must be protected.. 32 According to Djisman Samosir, if you look at book II of the Criminal Code which regulates crime, it can be seen that of the many basic crimes (death penalty, imprisonment, confinement and fines) which are included in Article 10 of the Criminal Code, imprisonment is the most are threatened against the perpetrators of the crime in Book II of the Criminal Code. Why is the use of imprisonment more than other crimes such as capital punishment, imprisonment and fines, there is no explanation in the Criminal Code. According to D. Samosir, the use of imprisonment is more included in the Criminal Code compared to the death penalty, imprisonment and fines, because imprisonment is the only main crime in the Criminal Code that allows the holding of planned and directed coaching against the convict. Through the death penalty with a fine, coaching for the convict is not possible at all, while through confinement, coaching for the convict is very limited. So, related to efforts to foster convicts to be useful, the most appropriate way is through imprisonment. 33 Heavy sanctions often ensnare lower-level prison officials, who are in direct contact with inmates. Meanwhile, the perpetrators of high-ranking officials only receive administrative sanctions, removal from office without dismissal or transfer. 34 The appropriate punishment for convicts of corruption is exile or revocation of political rights and public office rights related to the use of state money. Besides the sanction of impoverishment, a fine of 3 (three) times the money that was corrupted. Rewarded with social work sanctions or hired voluntarily. This is because the purpose of punishment is to keep people away from society, because the crime of corruption is more at the expense of the state, not causing direct harm to individuals or society. With the revocation of the right for life to occupy positions related to the use of state money, it is certain that he will no longer be able to repeat his actions, as is the purpose of the punishment itself.

A deterrent effect for perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption
Corruption in human life is not a new thing, but has existed along with the human age itself. Corruption at this time has become very familiar to the ears and is considered something that is not good and causes the nation's decline. This problem needs to be made into something that must be tackled together and fought together. The meaning of corruption itself is the abuse of public power for personal or private interests that harm the public in ways that are contrary to applicable legal provisions.
Corruption occurs if it fulfills three things, namely first if someone has the power, including to determine public policy and administer the policy. Second, the existence of economic rent, namely the economic benefits of the public policy. Third, the existing system opens up opportunities for violations by the public officials concerned. 35 In a country the law that governs is the law, not humans. Law is interpreted as a hierarchical unit of legal norm order culminating in the constitution. This means that in a state of law requires the supremacy of the constitution 36 . The supremacy of the constitution, besides being a consequence of the concept of the rule of law, is also the implementation of democracy because the constitution is the highest form of social agreement. 37 Democracy basically gives freedom to every citizen to express freely. The freedom referred to is freedom in accordance with the legal provisions in Indonesia. Therefore, a good law will guarantee justice to every citizen regardless of social status and position. The efforts of the government of the Republic of Indonesia in eradicating corruption have been carried out since President B.J. Habibie invited Komnas HAM to discuss the concept of forming an Independent Committee on the eradication of KKN. As a form of a state of law, the first step that has been taken by the Indonesian government is to be guided by the legislation on acts of corruption, including Supposedly the perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption deserve the death penalty, because being given the death penalty will provide a deterrent effect and also be a lesson for others not to do the same thing (corruption). It's just that in practice, in general, almost no judges impose the death penalty because it is associated with aggravating or mitigating reasons and the mitigating factor is far more dominant in terms of the highest sentence limit, education, and others. 40 In imposing a criminal under the minimum threat to perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption by the judge that the judge's decision has contradicted the constitution contained in Article 1 paragraph 3 of the 1945 Constitution of the IV amendment which states that the state of Indonesia is a state of law. This means that the state apparatus in carrying out its duties and authorities must refer to the applicable legal rules. 41 The judicial power exercised by the Supreme Court is an independent power, free and may not be interfered with by anyone in carrying out their duties and authorities, judges in adjudicating and deciding cases of criminal acts of corruption may not arbitrarily impose criminal penalties on defendants, especially if the judge is in imposing the criminal verdict against the defendant is not in accordance with the applicable legal provisions, even the judge breaks the provisions with a criminal under the minimum threat in the PTPK Law.
In the case of corruption, the perpetrators can be sentenced to the maximum amount of punishment because the perpetrators must be held accountable for their actions. In every act that contains an element of error or crime, then the crime or error is what causes a person to be punished. In this case, the principle of no punishment without guilt is known (Geen Straf zonder Schuld or no punishment without guilt) 42 which is the main principle in the responsibility of the maker of the crime committed. This unwritten law principle is embraced by Indonesian criminal law today. This principle of no crime without fault is violated by strict liability and vicarious liability. 43 If the death penalty is considered a violation of human rights, then there are other punishment options, namely by being impoverished. The impoverishment of corruptors has great potential to eradicate corruption in Indonesia. Humanly no one wants to be poor. Of course, corruptors who usually live well and even tend to be luxurious will be afraid of living in poverty. The impoverishment of corruptors must be confirmed in a clear regulation so that they remain in the corridor of legal principles and do not lead to human rights violations. When corruptors are impoverished, not only he personally feels the effects, but also his family.
But unfortunately the criminal sanction of impoverishment for corruptors has not yet received a clear and established concept, and there is not even a common perception among anti-corruption activists regarding this concept of impoverishment. Many various parties agree with the impoverishment of corruptors, but on the other hand there are also various parties who disagree with the impoverishment of corruptors for perpetrators of corruption.
The impoverishment of corruptors has been carried out only by confiscation of assets resulting from criminal acts of corruption. The confiscation of these assets is by confiscation of all objects that are the result of a criminal act of corruption and/or by payment of replacement money in the amount of which is in accordance with the state's financial loss from a criminal act of corruption. This cannot be said to impoverish corruptors because corruptors can still freely use their assets that are not confiscated.
The novelty of this research is about the effectiveness of imprisonment for perpetrators of corruption and its eradication efforts that have obstacles or obstacles in their eradication efforts. Imprisoning perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption which is considered to have not provided a deterrent effect for perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption

C. Conclusion
Based on the results of data analysis and discussion that the author has described previously, it can be concluded as an answer to the existing problem formulation, the description is as follows: 1. Imprisonment is one of the main crimes that limit the freedom of movement of prisoners and their implementation by placing prisoners in correctional institutions. With the intention that others are not affected by the evil nature of the prisoner; so that young correctional officers carry out coaching for the prisoners themselves; and so that inmates do not repeat their actions after leaving prison. Imprisonment for perpetrators of corruption is considered less effective because based on the facts, the perpetrators of corruption are treated like kings who get luxurious facilities even though they are in detention cells. 2. Supposedly the perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption deserve the death penalty, because being given the death penalty will provide a deterrent effect and also be a lesson for others not to do the same thing (corruption). It's just that in practice, in general, almost no judges impose the death penalty because it is associated with aggravating or mitigating reasons and the mitigating factor is far more dominant in terms of the highest sentence limit, education, and others.