I

ndonesia considers corruption and terrorism extraordinary crimes and legislation stipulates maximum penalties to provide a deterrent effect. But the public cannot expect such tough punishment to consistently come from the courts. Instead, corruption and terrorism convicts often celebrate the light sentences they receive.

Former energy and mineral resources minister Jero Wacik could not hide his delight after Jakarta Corruption Court judges handed him a four-year prison term on Tuesday for misusing Rp 5 billion (US$370,000) in state funds, far lower than the nine-year jail sentence sought by Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) prosecutors. The panel of judges took into consideration the testimonies of Vice President Jusuf Kalla and former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in favor of Jero. Unsurprisingly, Jero thanked his former bosses for the light sentence.

Jero is the third minister in the Yudhoyono administration to be convicted of graft after former sports minister Andi Mallarangeng and former religious affairs minister Suryadharma Ali. Jero is also the 13th politician of Yudhoyono'€™s Democratic Party to have been found guilty of corruption. The party'€™s disgraced bigwigs include Andi, former chairman Anas Urbaningrum, former treasurer Muhammad Nazaruddin, Angelina Sondakh and former lawmaker Sutan Bhatoegana.

Dejected KPK leaders plan to challenge the mild sentence for Jero, despite the unlikelihood that the Supreme Court will grant the cassation appeal.

Last year the Jakarta Corruption Court won praise from all quarters for the historic life sentence handed to former Constitutional Court chief Akil Mochtar. The verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court, making Akil the graft convict who will serve the longest jail term ever, unless he seeks a case review and the Court rules in his favor.

In the Akil case the judges ruled that corruption of an extraordinary nature had occured. As chief of the institution authorized to adjudicate disputes about regional election results, Akil was deemed a threat to democracy as he could silence people in exhcange for money.

But a public official who betrays his or her oath to serve the public and misuses power for personal gain commits an extraordinary crime, no matter the amount of state losses caused, right? The impact of an abuse of power on the public'€™s wellbeing can be severe when, for instance, corruption sucks much-needed social assistance funds for poor families. That'€™s why corrupt officials deserve maximum sentences.

The decision of the Jakarta High Court to increase the jail sentence for former Bangkalan regent Fuad Amin Imron from eight to 13 years and to seize his assets worth Rp 250 billion is in fact another form of punishment with a sufficient deterrent effect. The verdict, which was delivered on Feb. 3 but announced only on Tuesday, fulfills the anticorruption principle of state asset recovery as well as the much-demanded impoverishment of graft convicts.

Imagine if all state officials found guilty of stealing state money had to return to the state all assets believed to have been obtained through corrupt practices, and had to live in poverty after serving their prison terms. It would be devastating not only for the convicts but also to their families. If asset recovery is enforced consistently, people will think twice before commiting corruption, because crime doesn'€™t pay.

A specific law concerning asset recovery may be needed to bolster the national fight against corruption. The law should stipulate that state asset recovery is mandatory in corruption cases. In the antiterrorism field, the maximum penalty of death looks unlikely to have a deterrence effect as most terrorist convicts claim they are happy to die to defend their beliefs. Of dozens of people found guilty of perpetrating acts of terrorism only three have received capital punishment that has been carried out.

Indonesia'€™s fight against terrorism was given a boost, however, when the West Jakarta District Court handed down jail sentences of between three and five years to seven men for joining the terrorist organization Islamic State and for fighting with the group in Syria. Previously, no Indonesians arriving home from '€œa holy war'€ overseas had faced charges, although there was a mechanism in place to do so.

On Tuesday the judges delivered their verdict based on the terrorism law, terrorism funding law, electronic information and transaction law as well as UN Resolution No. 2178 that declares Islamic State (IS) movement a terrorist organization.

Indeed the verdict sets a precedent for prosecuting those who fight for a terrorist group overseas. There are about 800 Indonesian nationals believed to have pledged allegiance to IS, including Bahrun Naim, one of the alleged masterminds of the Jan. 14 attack in Central Jakarta.

Support is growing for the government to withdraw the nationality of Indonesians who fight alongside IS in Syria and therefore deny them reentry into their own country. This penalty is reminiscent of the New Order policy that rendered many overseas Indonesian citizens stateless in the wake of the Communist purge in 1965 and 1966.

There is no doubt that IS, as well as terrorism, presents a clear danger to Indonesia and must be countered through strict law enforcement. Preventing the seeds of terrorism from growing, however, will be more effective, but this will require an extraordinary effort.

'€” Dwi Atmanta