Death penalty irony: Executing terrorists assists terrorists

Bramantyo Prijosusilo ,  Ngawi, East Java   |  Fri, 07/25/2008 1:03 PM  |  Opinion

Recently, the state shot dead two Nigerian drug traffickers, two serial killers who worked as traditional spiritualists (dukun), and a mother and son who spent 20 years in prison for the brutal murder of nearly all members of a family.

Ready to face the midnight firing squad soon are more drug dealers and the notorious Bali bombers. How do we feel about this?

The recent executions created a stir with the national media. Journalists interviewed the condemned and news cameras followed the burials. Some graves became instant local tourist attractions. We demonstrated a morbid fascination with the killings by hungrily lapping up every new story about them.

Some commentators expressed regret that no corruptors are to face the firing squad. Others said that 20 years spent in prison by some convicts before execution was unjust. A few activists, including some in the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas Ham), argued against the death penalty.

There is talk about reviewing the Criminal Code to examine whether or not the death penalty contradicts principles of human rights and our Constitution.

The debate is alive, and because of this there is a good chance the death penalty will be dropped some time in the future.

Among all those on death row in Indonesia, the Bali bombers are the most controversial.

Imam Samudra, the most eloquent of the three condemned bombers has written and published a best-selling book arguing that he is a defender of Islam and not a terrorist. Recently he was featured in Jihadmagz, a glossy jihadi magazine published in Jakarta, saying the Bali bombers are Islamic wali (friends of God) and that their execution will bring God's wrath upon this country.

Because the Bali bombers have refused to plead for a presidential pardon, which requires an acknowledgement of guilt, it is highly likely that their executions are imminent.

The fate of the Bali bombers brings a new dimension to the death penalty debate. Should the State execute criminals who -- like the terrorists -- actively seek death? Could such an action be deemed to be assisting terrorists?

Imam Samudra, Ali Gufron and Amrozi do not fear death. In fact, during the bombing of Kuta in 2002 they actively encouraged and assisted a colleague to blow himself up with a suicide backpack. For them a suicide bombing is not an act of self-destruction, but rather they are "martyrdom operations".

Australian Sam Brian Deegan, whose son Joshua died in the 2002 attack, is against the execution of his son's murderers. In a letter released the day after the Denpasar court rejected the trio's final appeal, Deegan wrote that "no good, only harm" would come from killing the terrorists. By principle, Deegan opposes the death penalty, a view also held by his late son.

The sparing of the Bali bombers from the firing squad not only has strong ethical and moral arguments behind it, moreover, it is also a prudent anti-terror strategy. It is clear that if the state decides to place the Bali bombers in front of the firing squad, it will unwittingly play into the hands of the terrorists.

A state execution would be a climax to the morbid struggle the terrorists romantically imagine to be waging. They would become martyrs in their own eyes and in the eyes of their followers. The executioner's bullet would be their crowning glory.

The recent uncovering of a massive terror plot in Sumatra proves that terrorists here are still actively plotting and organizing. The presence and growth of media sympathetic to terror acts, like Majelis Mujahidin's magazine or the new glossy Jihadmagz, demonstrates that some groups are working hard to widen support for terror ideology. In our country, Jihadi videos are currently easy to obtain through mail order.

We can count on these networks of sympathizers to seize the executions as an opportunity to glorify terror and terrorists. As several of the bombers have mentioned in interviews, the executions might also serve as a cue for sleeper cells to go into action.

Supporters of the death penalty in Indonesia often argue that for certain crimes Islamic law orders the death penalty. Texts in the Koran and in the Hadith traditions support this view explicitly. The Prophet Muhammad himself on several occasions administered the death penalty.

However, Islamic scholars are still arguing over whether the application of the death penalty in Islam is a social and cultural construction, or a universal Islamic value to be applied under any circumstance.

The progressive Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan has called for a complete moratorium on Islamic death penalties. In his opinion, a literal application of the death penalty texts would be in fact a betrayal to the teachings of Islam if, depending on the context, the execution produced injustice. To illustrate his view, Tariq cites the historic Umar bin Khattab as an example.

Umar bin Khattab, who rightly guided the caliph, suspended amputating the limbs of thieves in the time of famine. Even though Umar bin Khattab knew very well that the Koran is explicit about the punishment of theft, keeping to a literal interpretation of the explicit text during a famine would betray the Koran's message of universal justice.

Following the precedent set by Umar bin Khattab there is even more reason to outlaw the death penalty in Indonesia, particularly for Islamist terrorism. A life term without parole in a high security prison would be real punishment for the brutal terrorists. Death to the terrorist is victory, not defeat. Should the state help the terrorists achieve victory?

The writer is an artist and former journalist. He can be reached at bramn4bi@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.