Abstract
The application of capital punishment itself has been regulated in Indonesia as contained in the law. Article 2 paragraph (2) of Corruption Act concerning Eradication of Corruption Crimes. According to Romli Atmasasmita, it was argued that the death penalty for corruptors was effectively implemented in the People's Republic of China (PRC), and it was quite successful to reduce corruption. This certainly can be used as an example in Indonesia in imposing capital punishment for corruptors. The imposition of capital punishment for perpetrators of corruption is urgently needed as "shock therapy" because psychologically the death penalty aims for the benefit of general prevention so that others do not participate in committing crimes. Also, the application of capital punishment is based on the reason that capital punishment is more certain than the prison sentence because the prison sentence is often followed by running away, forgiveness, or because of the release. When compared from an economic standpoint, basically the death sentence is more efficient when compared to life imprisonment. As for the problems that can be formulated, namely: legal arrangements regarding corruption in the Corruption Act; the application of capital punishment sanctions against perpetrators of corruption in Indonesia. The results of the study show that: Corruption is a type of extraordinary crime ("extra-ordinary crime") that must be handled extraordinarily, so that the act is contrary to the 1945 Constitution, therefore it does not need to be protected by the 1945 Constitution. accommodated in Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Corruption Act, must meet the requirements "in certain circumstances" by the Elucidation of Article 2 paragraph (2), but its application has never been implemented, so it is necessary to review the rules "in certain circumstances".
Highlights
ABSTRAK Penerapan pidana mati sendiri sudah diatur di Indonesia sebagaimana tertuang dalam undang-undang
The application of capital punishment itself has been regulated in Indonesia
it was argued that the death penalty for corruptors was effectively implemented in the
Summary
Bersifat deskriptif.[18]. Data bersumber dari data sekunder sebagai sumber bahan hukum. Ancaman pidana mati dalam Pasal 2 ayat (2) UU Tipikor tidak bertentangan dengan UUD 1945, dan tetap perlu diterapkan dan diperbaiki formulasinya, oleh karena para pelaku tindak pidana korupsi tersebut sudah melakukan perbuatan-perbuatan yang merusak, membahayakan kelangsungan hidup, dan kehidupan berbangsa dan ber-Negara. Negara juga harus menentukan batasan nominal yang dikorupsi yang akan dikenakan pidana mati, misalnya “Setiap orang yang dengan tujuan menguntungkan diri sendiri atau orang lain atau suatu korporasi, menyalahgunakan kewenangan, kesempatan atau sarana yang ada padanya karena jabatan atau kedudukan yang dapat merugikan keuangan negara atau perekonomian negara, sebesar Rp.1.000.000.000,- (satu miliar rupiah), dipidana dengan pidana mati, pidana penjara seumur hidup atau pidana penjara paling singkat 5 (lima) tahun dan paling lama 20 (dua puluh) tahun dan harta kekayaan koruptor disita untuk digunakan bagi kepentingan negara”. Serta harus disusun undang-undang khusus tentang pidana mati untuk melengkapi ketentuan dalam KUHP, sebelum RUU KUHP dinyatakan sebagai hukum positif di Indonesia
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
