Depenalization of the Threat of Death Penalty Sanctions for Perpetrators of Corrupt Criminal Acts Based on the Values of Justice.

المقالة تستعرض التعقيدات المحيطة بعقوبة الإعدام للفساد في إندونيسيا، مسلطة الضوء على تداعياتها على اليقين القانوني والعدالة. تناقش القانون رقم 20 لعام 2001، الذي يسمح بعقوبة الإعدام في بعض حالات الفساد، لكنها تشير إلى أن تطبيقه اختياري، مما يؤدي إلى عدم اتساق في التنفيذ. تؤكد الدراسة على الحاجة إلى إلغاء العقوبات، داعية إلى فرض عقوبات أكثر إنسانية وتناسبًا تركز على استرداد الأصول والوقاية بدلاً من العقوبات القصوى. وتجادل بأن النهج الحالي قد لا يكون فعالًا في ردع الفساد وغالبًا ما يتعارض مع مبادئ حقوق الإنسان، مقترحة التحول نحو العدالة التصالحية وإصلاحات قانونية شاملة. [Extracted from the article]

Corruption is considered an extraordinary crime that has a negative impact on the economy, state stability, and public trust, damaging governance, public services, development, and social inequality. Based on Law Number 46 of 2009 concerning the Corruption Court, corruption cases must be tried in the Special Corruption Court within its jurisdiction. The focus of the study is to explain how the death penalty for corruption is constructed in the concept of legal certainty and how the depenalization of the threat of the death penalty for perpetrators of corruption are based on the value of justice. The purpose of this study is to determine and analyze the construction of the death penalty and the form of de-escalation of the threat of the death penalty for perpetrators of corruption.The research used a normative method (normative law research) and a normative case study in the form of legal behavior products and data obtained through literature studies. Emphasis was placed on secondary data consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. Related to the context of legal certainty, the structure of the death penalty for corruption shows a significant discrepancy between the written legal standards and the applied judicial practices. According to Article 2 Paragraph 2 of Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption, perpetrators of corruption can be sentenced to death in several cases. However, the word "can" used in the provision indicates that the application of the death penalty is optional and not mandatory. Based on the value of justice, the depenalization policy is not always effective in protecting perpetrators of corruption from the threat of the death penalty. Because the death penalty is often considered inhumane and does not guarantee a reduction in the level of corruption, this policy is considered to better reflect human rights and substantive justice. Depenalization allows for a more constructive and reformist approach by emphasizing the recovery of state assets, prevention, and proportional punishment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of KnE Social Sciences is the property of Knowledge E DMCC and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)