D

rug-related crimes in Indonesia have entered an emergency phase, threatening the nation'€™s resilience. According President Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo, everyday the crimes claim the lives of 40-50 Indonesian citizens, causing their families to grieve and experience agony. Can, therefore, capital punishment be imposed against drug offenders?

The death penalty controversy has long and will always be a source of debate among legal philosophers and jurists. Both the opposition (abolitionists) and supporters (retentionists), have strong arguments.

The abolitionists base their arguments on three things.

First, the death penalty is a crime against human rights and a form of inhuman punishment. That'€™s why many countries have removed capital punishment from their criminal justice systems. Until recently, nearly 100 countries have revoked the practice. According to Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in 2000, European Union states are not allowed to impose the death penalty.

The UN General Assembly, in 2007, 2008 and 2010, adopted non-binding resolutions demanding a global moratorium against the death penalty. Optional Protocol II of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights/ICCPR finally prohibits the use of capital punishment by its state parties.

The abolitionists further argue about the constitutionality of capital punishment. The abolitionists in the United States, for instance, oppose it arguing that such a harsh punishment contradicts Amendment VIII of the US Constitution.

The constitutional argument has also been raised by the abolitionists in Indonesia. In 2007, two Indonesian drug-related convicts, Edith Sianturi and Rani Andriani, and three Australian nationals, who were members of the so-called '€œBali Nine'€ drug ring '€” Myuran Sukumaran, Andrew Chan and Scott Rush '€” filed a motion for judicial review with the Constitutional Court against the death penalty article in Law No.22/1997 on Narcotics.

The lawyer for the appellants said the article contradicted Article 28A Amendment II of the 1945 Constitution. The Constitutional Court turned down the judicial review, saying the death penalty for serious crimes was a form of human rights restriction.

The abolitionists also reject the arguments of the retentionists, who believe that the death penalty will deter potential offenders and, therefore, reduce the rate of (drug-related) crimes.

There is, they insist, no conclusive, scientific evidence confirming positive correlations between the rate of crimes and the imposition of the death penalty. On the other side, the retentionists staunchly support the death penalty. The main argument is that capital punishment deters potential offenders from committing (drug) offenses.

Having realized the severity of the punishment, they will think twice before risking their lives for short gains from crime.

Facts suggest that compared with countries that do not adopt capital punishment, Saudi Arabia, which imposes the death penalty based on Islamic law, has a low crime rate. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime data in 2012 found that the rate of murder in the Muslim country stood at '€œonly'€ 1 per 100,000 people as against Finland (2.2), Belgium (1.7) and Russia (10.2).

The retentionists further reject a claim that the death penalty is inhuman. They assert that drug-related offenses are a form of extraordinary crime, which disregards humanity.

This kind of crime has not only seized the right to life (a fundamental right) of one but many people, as the Indonesia case has shown.

Moreover, in the case of Indonesia the retentionists, referring to the Indonesian Constitutional Court, argue that the death penalty does not contradict with the 1945 Constitution. In the United States, such punishment is also constitutional.

In the case of Gregg vs. Georgia, the American Supreme Court declared that, '€œthe punishment of death does not violate the Constitution.'€

Drug-related crimes are extraordinary crimes, a common enemy that cripples the joints of most basic human rights, not only in Indonesia but in many countries.

However, we must realize that capital punishment alone will not be effective in combating drug-related crimes. Enforcing the narcotic drug abuse laws with integrity or combating corruption in law enforcement agencies, lowering demand for drugs and rehabilitating drug addicts are both effective solutions.

We must also be very careful in imposing the death penalty. In a corrupt criminal justice system, an innocent person can become a victim of the miscarriage of justice.

Even in the US, which has a relatively good criminal justice system, 23 convicts from 1900 to 1987 were mistakenly executed as a result of a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the convicts must have any fair chance to appeal such a harsh punishment.

In the future, if drug-related crimes in this country are no longer in a state of emergency, the death penalty may be suspended. The government may need to study an option of awarding clemency to foreign drug criminals whose countries do not impose the death penalty as the most severe punishment.

Despite the unabated debate, Indonesia, like other democracies where the death sentence is in place, still believes that capital punishment at least will send a strong signal to everyone that we do not compromise with drug criminals.

As this extraordinary crime has taken the right to life of many people, the death penalty should be justified to provide justice especially to those victims and their families.

Many Indonesian citizens are also facing execution overseas. The state certainly has been seeking every avenue to save them.

However, as affirmed in the UN Charter and international law, we have to respect and cannot intervene with the countries'€™ legal systems.

We only hope the death penalty against drug criminals will and should not sacrifice bilateral cooperation and good relations between Indonesia and other countries.

As a part of the international community, we should instead work together and stand united in the fight against drug crimes.