National elements have continued to voice their concern about rampant corruption in the country. Now, the apprehensiveness comes from the country’s largest Islamic mass organization, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU). What is about the form of the apprehensiveness?
Reportedly National Congress of NU issued an edict containing recommendation about death sentence for corrupters repeating their action. Briefly, NU affirms that death sentence is imposed on corrupters as a curative effect so that the corrupters refrain themselves from repeating the same action. The decision is made through considerations. If a case remains unclear or doubtful, the punishment eliminating one life still cannot be executed. NU views that people committing corruption repeatedly have affected the others so that it is necessary to take firm action discontinue the misconduct. The action is in the form of death sentence.
The edict seems attractive because it’s not only the nature but also draw mixed responses from law specialists or observers. So far, law observers and specialists have not agreed fully the application of death penalty to corrupters. Controversy accompanied the recent statement of Denny Idrayana in social media saying that corrupter lawyer is the same as corrupter reflects divergent views of law specialists over corruption. Procedural factor constitutes a side becoming a point of divergent views among the law specialists. Therefore, it is not wonder if some are still determined to claim that corruption may be sentenced to death if the corruption has endangered seriously the existence of state. It means not all corruption cases endanger the state. Is it true?
In view of the above mentioned description, fundamental questions should be submitted. Has the ongoing corruption practice not yet endangered the existence of the state ? Could NU’s edict be deemed quite realistic in reading the situation and corruption practice gnawing state finance now? Later, why must the second chance, even more, be granted to corrupters so that they could be punished by death sentence ? the questions are inspiring cum complaining, given that part of the people has deemed corruption as extraordinary crime.
Without reducing respect to NU, we want to disclose opinion and postulate here. Firstly, death sentence constitutes a way to create curative effect for corrupters. Here, the penalty is expected to materialize to become energy forming the curative effect. If we agree upon the opinion and postulate, surely repetition of action is not needed so that the death sentence could be imposed. Probably, it’s better off considering the amount of state loss arising from the corruption committed by the defendant and whether the defendant is proven enjoying state finance charged against the relevant. The consideration is more realistic because people accused of committing corruption frequently do not enjoy state loss charged against them. They are declared guilty for committing corruption because of their position, namely holding responsibility because of position or negligence causing state loss.
Without reducing appreciation to NU, the death sentence edict is potential to affect the commitment of the people to rewarding corrupters by death sentence. The using of phrase “repeatedly” draws question, how many times is the corruption executed? However, the edict is difficult to implement, besides adding more difference in point of view over corruption crime, whereas the application of death sentence to corrupters needs the full commitment and determination of the whole national elements.