Why Indonesia Maintain Capital Punishment?




The death penalty in Indonesia is still maintained to combat crime within the Indonesian criminal law reform. Although many states have it removed, Indonesia would have the sole discretion to keep it. Despite the opposition, the death penalty application still has a juridical and sociological basis, so it is still legal to be maintained. Indonesia itself has overshadowed the death penalty with a form of legality according to international law so that the position of Indonesia that still maintain the death penalty cannot be blamed. Moreover, sociologically, Indonesian people still accept those who commit an offence who may have profound implications that could lead to the death penalty. This issue is what became the basis for lawmakers in Indonesia to keep it. This research uses the doctrinal method toexamine various regulations regarding capital punishment and non-doctrinal to understand the community's situation related to the existence of capital punishment in Indonesia. The death penalty is a more effective deterrent and therefore prevents crime better. With the death penalty, others were about to commit a similar crime is expected not to commit the crime. The death penalty is more effectively immobilizing offenders. Perpetrators, in principle, still manage to have the desire to commit the crime again after release. The death penalty for perpetrators of crimes is not a violation of human rights, but rather to respect human rights itself, namely for victims of crime. The setting and the application of the death penalty in Indonesia until now is still needed. They are considering that there are still many crimes that undermine humanity's values or the crimes that harm the State and crackdown on corruption in society.




Arief, Barda Nawawie. "Ancaman Pidana Mati Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dalam Peraturan Perundang-Undangan", Masalah-Masalah Hukum 42, no. 1, 2013: 23-33, DOI: 10.14710/mmh.42.1.2013.23-33.

Chan, Janet., Oxley, Deborah. "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment : A Review of the Research Evidence". Crime and Justice Bulletin, no. 84, 2004: 1-24.

Criminal Justice Departement NAACP, NAACP Death Penalty Fact Sheet. United States: NAACP, 2017.

Falco, Diana L., Freiburger, Tina L. "Public Opinion and the Death Penalty : A Qualitative Approach", The Qualitative Report 16, no. 3, 2011: 830-847.

http://icjr.or.id/hukuman-mati-di-indonesia-dari-masa-ke-masa/2017, Accessed on January 30, 2020.

Ichinose, Masaki. "The Death Penalty Debate : Four Problems and New Philosophical Perspectives", Journal of Practical Ethics 5, no. 1, 2017: 56-84.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (ICCPR).

Johnson, David T. "Retention and Reform in Japanese Capital Punishment PUNISHMENT", U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 853, no. 49, 2016: 853-889.

Nagin, Daniel S., Pepper, John V. Deterrence and the Death Penalty. Washington: The National Academies Press, 2012.

Radelet, Michael L. "The Incremental Retributive Impact of a Death Sentence Over Life Without Parole", University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 49, no. 4, 2016: 795-815.

Roman, John K. Costs of the Death Penalty. Judiciary Committee Delaware Senate, 2013.

Roy, Gargi. "Is Capital Punishment Acceptable?". International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 4, no. 2, 2014: 95-98.

Sahetapy, JE. Ancaman Pidana Terhadap Pembunuhan Berencana. Malang: SETARA Press, 2009.

Schabas, William A. The Abolition of Capital Punishment from an International Law Perspective. England: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Venturi, Giulio Carlo. "The Death Penalty FUNDAMENTALS AND SYSTEMS OF POSITIVE LAW", "Non Occides" Exodus 20, no. 13, 2017: 1-18.


Download data is not yet available.
Total Abstract Views: 16 | Total Downloads: 16



  • Ahmad Irzal Fardiansyah University of Lampung



How to Cite

Fardiansyah, Ahmad Irzal. 2021. “Why Indonesia Maintain Capital Punishment?”. Fiat Justisia: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 15 (1):25-38. https://doi.org/10.25041/fiatjustisia.v15no1.1904.