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.
No comments:
Post a Comment