Indonesia’s ongoing application of the death penalty, particularly for drug trafficking, has drawn significant international criticism, especially concerning the Bali Nine case. President Joko Widodo’s assertions regarding sovereignty and justifications for these executions conflict with established international law, which prohibits the death penalty for non-lethal crimes. Despite some humane practices in execution methods, the moral and legal ramifications raise serious concerns about the legitimacy of state-sanctioned capital punishment.
Indonesia has faced significant scrutiny regarding its continued application of the death penalty, particularly arising from the case of the Bali Nine—an assembly of individuals convicted for drug trafficking that includes various foreign nationals. In response to international disapproval from nations such as Australia, Brazil, and France—who have citizens on death row—President Joko Widodo declared on February 25 that foreign interference in Indonesia’s sovereign legal practices would not be tolerated, justifying the executions as a consequence of national law. However, from the perspective of international law, President Widodo’s assertions are fundamentally flawed. His statement claiming a lack of intervention regarding the death penalty reflects a misinterpretation of contemporary standards in human rights, which recognizes capital punishment as a pressing issue on a global scale. The aftermath of World War II ushered in a consensus on the necessity of regulating death penalty legislation within the framework of international law. Despite historical disagreements, by 1966, it was established that the application of the death penalty needed oversight. Indonesia’s recent executions have predominantly impacted foreign nationals, thus invoking the principle of diplomatic protection—an ancient right that allows states to advocate for their citizens abroad. This principle underscores the legitimacy of Australia, Brazil, and France voicing concerns about their nationals facing capital punishment within Indonesia. It is worth noting the inconsistency in Indonesia’s stance, as the nation intervenes on behalf of its own citizens facing death penalties abroad. While Indonesia enforces the death penalty for drug-related offenses, international law clearly states that capital punishment should only be levied against individuals who have directly caused a death. The United Nations has explicitly banned the use of the death penalty for drug trafficking offenses, thereby rendering Indonesia’s actions a breach of international statutes. Assertions attempting to quell external criticism of these violations undermine the integrity of international legal standards. Moreover, President Widodo has shown no willingness to consider clemency for drug offenders, despite legal provisions that advocate for the case-by-case assessment of such requests. International law mandates intervention when state actions violate established legal norms. Widodo argues that the death penalty is a necessary deterrent against drug trafficking. However, substantial evidence casts doubt on the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent, and reports suggest that the drug crisis in Indonesia is not as dire as portrayed by authorities to justify executions. Consequently, the execution of drug offenders lacks necessity and effectiveness, leading to moral and legal quandaries. One aspect worth noting is that Indonesia arguably meets the humane execution standard, ensuring that such processes are carried out with dignity. Yet, this does little to address the fundamental ethical dilemmas associated with capital punishment. In contrast to more controversial methods employed in certain jurisdictions, Indonesia’s reliance on firing squads is comparatively humane and efficient. Yet, this circumstance highlights the troubling nature of capital punishment, wherein the method deemed least problematic involves inflicting lethal force upon another individual. This reality poses a significant moral dilemma regarding the legitimacy and humanity of sanctioned state executions and raises questions about where the line between accepted legal practices and unlawful homicide lies. The disheartening conclusion is that while some aspects of Indonesia’s capital punishment practices align with international norms, the broader implications of state-sanctioned death are deeply unsettling. Bharat Malkani
The article discusses the criticism directed towards Indonesia’s use of the death penalty, particularly in relation to foreign nationals convicted of drug trafficking. Indonesia’s President, Joko Widodo, has faced international backlash for continuing executions amid claims of sovereignty over legal practices. The author examines Indonesia’s compliance with international law concerning capital punishment, highlighting the flaws in Widodo’s arguments and the global standard regarding the death penalty.
In summary, the use of the death penalty in Indonesia, especially for non-lethal crimes such as drug trafficking, stands in stark opposition to international human rights standards. Despite justifications provided by President Widodo, the lack of evidence indicating its effectiveness as a deterrent and the clear prohibition against capital punishment for non-lethal offenses highlight both moral and legal contradictions in Indonesia’s practices. While the methods of execution may adhere to humane standards, this does not mitigate the troubling ethical implications of sanctioned death. Ultimately, the need for a reevaluation of such practices in line with international law is imperative.
Original Source: www.newsweek.com
