B

y upholding its death penalty, Indonesia has shown the world that it does not bow to pressure. Four convicts were killed early Friday shortly after midnight — not 14 as we had mistakenly reported and for which we issued a correction and a sincere apology.

President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo had decided to spare 10 of the convicts, but he has still managed to become Indonesia’s post-reformation president with the most executions. At the time of writing it was unclear why the 10 convicts were spared, whether they were granted amnesty or had their time on death row prolonged indefinitely. If the latter, their families would therefore not feel relief for long.

We appreciate President Jokowi’s last-minute decision to spare the lives of those 10 convicts. However, although the decision was the President’s prerogative, the public needs a reasonable explanation about the grounds upon which the selection was made for who was killed and who was spared.

For instance, Nigerian Humphrey Ejike had requested clemency a few days ago, but was still prepared for execution, which violated standard procedures. Also, even if the President harbored slight doubts, suspecting a miscarriage of justice — for instance, regarding Merri Utami, whom the national women’s rights organization claimed to be a victim of trafficking — the convicts should be instantly taken off death row and brought to a retrial.

More importantly, Jokowi’s decision should lead at least to a moratorium on the death penalty, a move that should be a first step to phase it out. If not for a change of belief that humans should not bear God-like powers, then at least President Jokowi should see that his 11th hour turnaround reflects a real possibility that leaders could kill a person and regret it afterwards — in vain.

Yes, the death penalty is still in our laws, inherited from the Dutch colonial era. However, as rights advocates and former president BJ Habibie cited in his recent written appeal to Jokowi, the death penalty is no longer credible and acceptable among much of the international community. We have not seen a meaningful decline in drug abuse crimes since the earlier rounds of executions, which were aimed at deterring such crimes.

Many support Jokowi’s firmness on the penalty, citing the evilness of such convicts. Such criminals continuously profit from drug addicts and reportedly even entice children through new addictive substances disguised as candy. Citizens shocked by rapists and murderers of children and terrorist crimes also wish death on such criminals.

However, the latest President’s decision clearly shows the risk of humans holding responsibility for life and death sentences. New evidence could appear — belatedly. For instance, in drug abuse cases convicts sometimes turn out to be “mules” or couriers in the drug market chain — the main reason believed to be behind the staying of the execution of an earlier death row inmate, the Filipina Mary Jane Veloso.

Furthermore, a judiciary that is far from clean cannot guarantee that any President can send someone to the firing squad with a clear conscience.