DEATH PENALTY FOR
CORRUPTION CRIMES REVIEWED FROM A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE
Sujono1, Marissa Kemala Dirgantini2,
Dwi Atmoko3
|
Keywords: Corruption,
Death Penalty, Human Rights |
|
ABSTRACT |
|
|
Prevention & eradication of criminal acts of
corruption in Indonesia has been very intensively implemented because
corruption in Indonesia is now so rampant, acute, and systemic. The existence
of firm and harsh criminal sanctions has a very important role in the process
of eradicating corruption. In Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law
Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes or what is
called the PTPK Law, there is a juridical space that can be used to impose
death penalty sanctions on perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption,
namely in Article 2 paragraph (2) The PTPK Law stipulates that if the
criminal act of corruption as intended in paragraph (1) is committed under
certain circumstances, the death penalty can be imposed." However, until
now in its implementation, there has never been a single court decision in
Indonesia that dared to use this article. Apart from that, imposing the death
penalty sanction is not easy because there is still debate because not all
people agree with this heaviest sanction, they argue that imposing the death
penalty sanction is considered to violate human rights. The issue of
protecting human rights, especially the right to life, has so far been the
main reason for imposing the death penalty for perpetrators of criminal acts
of corruption. Furthermore, those who oppose the imposition of death penalty
sanctions feel that the right to life is an absolute right that cannot be
revoked by anyone except God, and this right is protected by the 1945
Constitution, Article 28 I paragraph (1). Given this, the enforcement of
death penalty sanctions against perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption
will of course become an obstacle in its enforcement in the future. |
|
|
This is an open-access
article under a CC BY-SA �license. |
||
INTRODUCTION
In the history of human civilization, one of the
oldest crimes in the world and the most difficult to eradicate is corruption (Brioschi, 2017). According Gayus Lumbuun, a member of the
House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia Commission III, argues
that: "it is said that there is not a single country in the world that is
free from acts of corruption". Likewise in Indonesia, even in this country
corruption has spread widely and evenly from Sabang to Marauke. The practice of
implementing central and regional governments has also shown that corruption is
rooted and entrenched. Of course, this is very unfortunate considering that the
reform mandate that is a decade old emphasizes more on eradicating
corruption.� The fight against corruption
should be the first and main goal to achieve good governance and clean
governance (Novita & Tasya, 2024). This idealism is still far from being roasted.
The role of judges in issuing verdicts plays a very important role in providing
a deterrent effect for perpetrators of corruption crimes and most importantly
has provided a sense of justice for the community (Prakoso & Richard,
2024). If there is a controversial or inconsistent judge's
decision, then it can be said that the decision does not support the nation's
desire to fight corruption at all (Amagnya, 2024). Corruption in Indonesia has been so acute,
epidemic, and systemic (Supriadi et al., 2021).
The existence of strict criminal sanctions has a very
important role in the process of eradicating corruption, including as a tool to
provide a deterrent effect, break the corruption paths that are built with the
perpetrators who are subject to criminal sanctions, and at the same time
educate so that the crime is not repeated or imitated by others. The effect of
criminal sanctions is not solely shown to the perpetrators of crimes, but also
to influence societal norms not to commit crimes.
Theoretically, heavy sanctions will make criminals
afraid so that they undo their intention to commit crimes. The magnitude and
severity of sanctions usually reflect the severity of the impact of the crime
committed and the government's seriousness to address it. So in the process of
law enforcement, the public often sees the size of the sanctions imposed and the
few or many criminals who are sentenced to criminal sanctions as a benchmark
for the success of law enforcement. Although such an assumption is not entirely
correct, it is true and reasonable for the community. The public in general
does not all understand how to enforce the law, what they know and want is to
see how the law can be enforced as firmly as possible, especially for
corruptors to create a sense of justice for the community. The imposition of
strict sanctions is a form of repressive effort to eradicate corruption crimes.
If there is a decision with too light a criminal
sanction or an improper imposition of sanctions against corruptors, then it can
be said that the decision is not in line with efforts to eradicate corruption.
Harsh and indiscriminate in imposing criminal sanctions should be a doctrine in
the strategy to eradicate corruption in Indonesia so that the eradication of
corruption in this beloved country does not run place. But unfortunately, so
far only a few corruptors have been sentenced to severe criminal sanctions.
Evidently, there are not a few corruption cases in this country that are not
decided with the maximum punishment by the judge. In fact, not a few verdicts
handed down by judges are not verdicts that meet the public's sense of justice.
Not a few corruptors are "spoiled" by judges with free verdicts or
very light verdicts.
Since the promulgation of the PTPK Law, there has only
been one corruptor who has been subject to the maximum criminal sanction,
namely prosecutor Urip Tri Gunawan who was sentenced to 20 years in prison,
while other corruptors were only sentenced to about 3-5 years in prison and
many even less than that. Especially for the imposition of the death penalty
sentence for corruptors, there has never been a story in this country.
Furthermore, if corruption crimes are carried out against funds intended for
countermeasures due to widespread social unrest, they are also prone to
corruption. Considering that today the Indonesian nation often has widespread
social riots, for example, wars between tribes or disputes that carry the name
of religion. Likewise, corruption crimes are committed against funds intended
for the management of economic and monetary crises where the country's economic
condition is falling like in 1997-1998. Meanwhile, corruptors who repeat
corruption crimes also deserve the heaviest criminal sanctions so that other
people or other former corruptors do not do the same thing.
The death penalty can be said to be one of the oldest
and most controversial types of criminal sanctions in the world. Controversial
in the sense that there are two thoughts with the same base of rejection but
end up with opposite results. The pros and cons of this criminal sanction are
inseparable from the development of criminal theories. The death penalty
sanction contained in the PTPK Law is not something new, because previously in
the Criminal Code (KUHP) in Article 10 there was also a death penalty sanction
as one of the main types of criminal sanctions. However, it is not easy to
apply this heaviest criminal sanction. In addition to the need for firmness
from law enforcement officials, in this case, prosecutors and judges, they also
need support from the community. But unfortunately, not all people agree with
this sanction, they argue that the imposition of the death penalty is
considered a violation of human rights. The issue of the protection of Human
Rights (HAM), especially the protection of the right to life, has been a major stumbling block to the imposition of the
death penalty for corruptors, even though corruptors are considered as public waste and corruption has caused
various kinds of problems in this country.
The discussion about the protection of this right has
indeed been quite long in the discourse of criminal law, but it seems that it
will never be obsolete to be studied because once this right is taken away, no
matter how sophisticated the technology and how powerful a person is, he will
still not be able to restore this right as it was. The protection of the right
to life is part of the many human rights protections provided by the 1945
Constitution. "The human rights provisions in the 1945 Constitution have
provided human rights guarantees to every citizen, all of which boil down to
the principle of equality before the
law".
RESEARCH METHODS
Legal
research is a scientific activity that is based on certain methods, systematics,
and thinking that aims to study something or some specific legal phenomena by
analyzing them. This research is a type of normative juridical law research.
Normative juridical research is research conducted by examining laws or
regulations related to legal issues. The results of the study can be used to
solve the legal problems being researched The type of normative juridical
research is based on the argument that this research study is legal research as
well as looking at the mutual relationship between the parties. In this
research, many research results and logical reasoning are revealed in
qualitative analysis, namely by making descriptions based on existing data
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
Scope
of corruption crimes
In essence, state wealth assets are wealth derived
from public funds, so it is appropriate for the public to have the right to the
proceeds of the state wealth. By returning these assets, it is hoped that it
will have a direct impact on restoring state finances or the state economy,
which ultimately leads to the welfare of a just and prosperous society based on
Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution.
However, efforts to recover corrupted state assets
tend to be difficult to do because the perpetrators of corruption crimes have
extraordinarily wide access and are difficult to reach in hiding the proceeds
of corruption crimes. The problem is becoming more difficult because the hiding
place of the proceeds of the crime has exceeded the country's borders. For
developing countries, especially Indonesia, penetrating various asset return
problems that touch the legal provisions of major countries will be difficult.
Especially if Indonesia does not have a good cooperative relationship with the
country where the stolen assets are stored. In addition, according to Article
33 and Article 34 of the PTPK Law, in the event of the death of the suspect,
the state can file a civil lawsuit against his heirs. These provisions, of
course, considering that Indonesia is still in the category of developing
countries, so for this reason, the return of state assets is an important thing
because it is to facilitate the growth and continuity of national development
that demands high efficiency.
Thus, it can be concluded that the crime of corruption
can be imposed on any person who unlawfully commits an act of enriching himself
or another person or a corporation that can reduce all or part of the state
wealth in any form, separated or unseparated, including all parts of state
wealth and all rights and obligations arising from being in control,� management, and accountability of State-Owned
Enterprises or Regional-Owned Enterprises, foundations, legal entities, and
companies that include state capital, or companies that include third-party
capital based on agreements with the state. The change in the explanation of
what is meant by certain circumstances above has the consequence that: "it
is no longer the time that is determined, but the allocation of money for that
particular circumstance that is corrupted"32 which determines
the possibility of the death penalty. This explanation is a criminal penalty
that can be imposed, so for the perpetrator of the crime of corruption it is
not necessary to prove that the perpetrator knows the existence of certain
circumstances at the time of committing the crime In terms of terminology, the
word emergency comes from the Arabic language, dhauri, which means an unusual or abnormal situation. In Wikipedia,
a state of affairs is formulated as "a government statement that may
change the functions of government, warn its citizens to change their
activities, or order state agencies to use emergency response plans.". The
existence of an emergency must be officially declared by the government so that
this emergency is de jure or emergency de jure, but if the government
does not officially declare an emergency, then this emergency is de facto or emergency de facto, meaning that it is indeed a de facto emergency, but de jure not an emergency or considered a normal situation. Such a
situation is very vulnerable and easy to abuse or weak in its legitimacy.
The threat of death penalty sanctions for perpetrators
of corruption crimes is not only subject to the provisions of Article 2 of the
PTPK Law but can also be subject to the provisions of other articles in the
PTPK Law where the provisions of these articles have criminal sanctions that
are similar to criminal sanctions in Article 2 of the PTPK Law. Criminal acts
whose criminal sanctions are equated with Article 2 of the PTPK Law are
criminal acts in Articles 15 and 16 of the PTPK Law. This can be seen in Article
15 of the PTPK Law which formulates that: "... shall be punished with the
same crime as referred to in Article 2 ..." Meanwhile, Article 16 of the
PTPK Law formulates that: "... convicted of the same crime as the
perpetrator of the crime of corruption as referred to in Article 2 ...".
The similarity between criminal sanctions and perpetrators who indirectly
commit corruption crimes with perpetrators of corruption crimes is because
corruption crimes have seriously harmed the state's finances or the country's
economy, so the provisions in the article are made into separate offenses and
threatened with the same criminal sanctions. Thus, it is possible that the
perpetrator of the crime of corruption who has fulfilled the intention as a
possibility is "the perpetrator only has a shadow of the possibility that
the result will occur without the intended result, the result that is clearly
not desired and only possible will occur".59 The� perpetrator at the time of his act to cause
an effect prohibited by law is aware of the possibility of a consequence other
than the one he intended. The intentionality of the perpetrator is shown
against the possibility of other consequences, which are not his goal and which
may arise from the execution of the act.
The provisions in Article 15 of the PTPK Law are
special rules because the main criminal threat in assisting to commit a
corruption crime is not reduced by 1/3 of the criminal threat, but is still
threatened with the same criminal threat as the criminal threat of the
perpetrator of a corruption crime that has been completed. This is different
from the provisions contained in Article 57 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code
where in general the criminal threat in assisting a criminal act is reduced by
1/3 of the criminal threat. Likewise, if the assistance of a crime that is
threatened with the death penalty as stipulated in Article 2 paragraph (2) of
the PTPK Law or the threat of life imprisonment, it is not changed to a maximum
of fifteen years in prison as is the case in Article 57 paragraph (2) of the
Criminal Code. Criminal threats for perpetrators of corruption crimes are still
threatened with the death penalty, the same penalty as the criminal threat for
perpetrators of corruption crimes that have been completed.
The imposition of the death penalty on criminals has
been a debate throughout the history of life. As if it never goes out of style,
this debate is related to what the criminal law wants to achieve through the
application of penalization. The question that arises is whether or not the
death penalty sanction is contrary to the concept of society, namely social
rehabilitation, and reintegration, which then returns the prisoner to community
life as before he committed the crime and was sentenced to criminal sanctions,
considering that the death penalty sanction is still felt to be based on the
purpose of revenge or retribution. Thus, the focus of this debate concerns the
purpose of the crime.
In its development, the purpose of penal crime has changed
from a long series of history. This development began when the purpose of
criminalization as a tool to deal with crime from a way of retaliation against
people who commit crimes turned into a tool to protect individuals from other
individual disturbances in society and to protect society from criminal
interference.����������
Death penalty
for corruption from the perspective of human rights
Criminal sanctions are an absolute consequence that
must exist as a retaliation for the person who committed the crime. Crime is
seen as an immoral and immoral act in society so the perpetrators of crime must
be retaliated with the imposition of criminal sanctions. When someone violates
the law and harms people or society by violating a rule, there will be a social
and moral imbalance in justice that can only be restored by punishing the
perpetrators. Usually, the perpetrator is punished according to the severity of
the violation committed by him. Proportionality is the key to the concept of
retribution theory. The main measure and proportionality are all measures of
the level of punishment that must not cross the limit under the seriousness of
an act. This act of retaliation is based on the idea that each individual is
responsible and has full freedom to make rational decisions.
�This demand for
absolute justice has received support from scholars, for example, Immanuel Kant
with his theory de Ethisce
Vergeldingstheori argued that: "Evil causes injustice, so it must be
repaid with injustice as well. Criminal is an absolute demand of law and
decency that is firmly upheld". Kant's opinion made the demand for
retaliation an ethical condition. Only justice can justify being sentenced.
Then Hegel in his theory de Dialectische
Vergelsingstheorie argues that: "law or justice is reality, so if a
person commits a crime it means that he denies the existence of law or justice,
it is considered unreasonable. Thus, the situation of denying justice must be
eliminated by injustice as well, namely by being sentenced because the crime is
also an injustice."
Based on Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945
Constitution formulates that: "The State of Indonesia is a state of
law". According to Kansil, as "a state of the law with the rule of law at its core, it must meet two
conditions, namely supremacy before the
law and equality before the
law".84 Supremacy before the law means that the law is
given a supreme position and equality
before the law means that all people are of equal status before the law.
Furthermore, the thinking of the state of law according to Julius
Stahl85 is characterized by four main elements, namely:
1.
Recognition and protection of human
rights;
2.
The state is based on the trials political theory;
3.
The government is organized based on law;
4.
There is a state administrative court.
The first element above contains the provision that in
Indonesia there is guaranteed protection of human rights based on legal
provisions and not the will of a person or group that is the basis of power. Every
state administrator must uphold justice and truth based on the law. Human
rights guarantees, especially the right to life-related to the imposition of
the death penalty for perpetrators of corruption crimes, have indeed been
debated for quite a long time, but it seems that it will never be obsolete to
be studied. In the 1945 Constitution, the provision of everyone's right to life
has been regulated in 2 articles, namely Article 28 A of the 1945 Constitution.
This means that everyone has rights, and those rights are inherent in oneself
which is a gift from God Almighty that cannot be reduced under any
circumstances. Human beings do not have the right to determine someone's life
or death because the one who has the right to determine someone's life or death
is God.
Regarding this view, it is not wrong and it is true.
However, what needs to be pondered is that the way to live or die a person is
not God who determines, but it goes back to man himself who determines his way
of life and how he dies in this world. Everyone who lives will die, but how to
choose death whether to die in good conditions or die in bad conditions, humans
are the ones who choose. If man wants to determine how not to die in a bad way,
then he should not have committed a crime. If a human being commits a crime in
his life, then in fact he has chosen not to die in a good state, especially if
he is an educated person and has an honorable status in the eyes of the public
because he must have known that what he is doing is an act that violates the
teachings of religion and state law. the absoluteness of human rights. If you
look at the arrangement of articles contained in the 1945 Constitution that
regulate provisions related to the protection of human rights, it will appear
that there is a restriction on human rights contained in the last article.
Article 28 J paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution has required everyone to
respect the human rights of others in the order of life in society, nation, and
state.
As a right, everyone is obliged to respect and uphold
that right, in other words, there must be a balance between rights and
obligations. If a person does not perform these obligations or violates the
rights of others, then the state can revoke or limit the rights of that person
in accordance with the law. For this reason, systematically, after Article 28 J
paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution which requires respect for the rights of
others was violated, it continued to Article 28 J paragraph (2) of the 1945
Constitution which regulates how human rights can be restricted. So that the
restriction of a person's human rights, including the right to life, has been
justified by the constitution through Article 28 J paragraph (2) of the 1945
Constitution which is the closing article of the human rights provisions. With
the placement of Article 28 J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution as a
closing article, it means that it has provided a systematic interpretation that
human rights regulated in Articles 28 A to 28 I of the Constitution are subject
to the provisions of the restriction of rights contained in Article 28 J of the
1945 Constitution. This means that the provisions of Article 28 J paragraph (2)
of the 1945 Constitution have provided a basis for restricting human rights
that are not allowed to violate the human rights of others or in other words
the Indonesian constitution does not adhere to the principle of absolute human
rights where human rights can be revoked by the state. Thus, the imposition of death
penalty sanctions for corruptors who have been hindered by human rights issues
can be enforced. Similarly, if the judge feels that it is appropriate to impose
the death penalty for the perpetrators of corruption crimes, then the decision
is not contrary to a person's right to life because the PTPK Law itself
provides a way for it. Not all cases of corruption can be sentenced to death.
The imposition of the death penalty can only be imposed by a judge on the
perpetrator of a corruption crime if the allocation of money for a certain
situation is corrupted as referred to in the provisions of Article 2 paragraph
(2) of the PTPK Law. This particular circumstance is the criminal burden so
that the right to life of the corruptor is not absolute to be protected, so
that the judge cannot arbitrarily impose a death penalty decision.
Furthermore, the eradication of corruption crimes that
must be carried out extraordinarily has included corruption as one of the most
serious crimes. This provision is in line with the interpretation given by the
UN Human Rights Committee. Thus, it is not wrong if the PTPK Law has provided a
formulation of the death penalty sanction in Article 2 paragraph (2). The crime
of corruption is not a crime whose direct purpose is to kill a person's life,
unlike the crime of terrorism or premeditated murder which can instantly kill a
person's life. However, the consequences of these corruption crimes can kill
many people en masse indirectly. Let's say that the funds for victims of
natural disasters are corrupted, the people who should be very entitled to
these funds to meet basic needs or medicines for their survival, are in danger
of not being able to be fulfilled so that sooner or later they will starve or
suffer from diseases that all lead to death. Their right to life will be
deprived as a result of corrupt acts committed by these corruptors. The
emergence of several parties who reject the imposition of the death penalty in
the name of human rights needs to be looked at more closely, human rights
should not be looked at lightly. Often the first argument they make is that the
imposition of the death penalty has violated the right to life, but if you look
closely, the crimes that are threatened with the death penalty are precisely
crimes that directly or indirectly attack the right to life, which is none
other than the right that is the main basis of the defense of the view that the
death penalty should be abolished.
The next argument is based on the reason for the
imperfection of the criminal justice system so that it allows for mistakes,
namely the imposition of the death penalty on innocent people. This kind of
argument is not fully acceptable because there are no facts or data that show
the percentage of errors that have occurred in the imposition of the death
penalty in a certain period of time. By still acknowledging the imperfections
of the criminal justice system, the judge is not an angel who is always right,
he is also an ordinary human being who can be wrong, but with the abolition of
the death penalty on the one hand, it still does not necessarily make the
criminal justice system perfect and on the other hand, the abolition of the
death penalty sanction will hurt the sense of justice of the community. If it
is felt that the judge's decision has been wrong in making a decision, of
course the aggrieved party, especially the defendant, will file an appeal until
review. If the judge from the first level to the judge at the review
examination and all of them corroborate each other's verdict that the defendant
is guilty and deserves to be sentenced to the death penalty, it is quite
difficult to say that the judge has wrongly given a verdict because every legal
remedy will definitely be corrected by a higher court.
In addition, by highlighting the possibility of
mistakes in imposing the death penalty on innocent people, the public will be
led by fixating on the mistake and forgetting the substance of the real debate,
namely why the defense of the right to life against the perpetrators of crimes
threatened with the death penalty becomes more valuable than the defense of the
right to life of the victims of the crime. Furthermore, the view that wants the
abolition of the death penalty with the argument that the existence of the
death penalty has failed to build a deterrent effect by often submitting
statistical data that shows that the death penalty does not reduce the quantity
of crimes, doubting the adequacy of its argumentative value. This is because
these statistical data are not specific data related to corruption crimes that
are threatened with death penalty sanctions, but only corruption crimes that
are not threatened with death penalty sanctions. Therefore, the question
arises, even though the quantity of corruption crimes increases, whether the
quantity of corruption crimes threatened with the death penalty is also The
higher the quality of the crime, the higher the quality of social disharmony it
causes in society. Corruption crimes, which are included as one of the
high-quality crimes, have greatly harmed harmony in society. Poverty, famine,
hunger, ignorance, and other bad things have been believed by the community to
be the result of this crime. Moreover, when funds intended for the management
of dangerous situations, national natural disasters, measures due to widespread
social unrest, economic and monetary crisis management are corrupted or former
corruptors repeat their corrupt acts, it will result in a considerable and
widespread shock to social harmony. Not only the people who are actually
entitled to these funds will denounce but also all levels of society in
Indonesia will denounce the acts of the corruptors. The impact of these crimes
will result in hunger, disease, all of which lead to death.
Thus, a crime or criminal act of corruption is a crime
that has directly or indirectly attacked the right to life and the right to
life. Restoring the perpetrators of crimes that have caused disharmony is a
form or effort to restore social harmony in the community. The imposition of
the death penalty imposed on the perpetrators of corruption crimes must be seen
as a restoration as an effort to restore social harmony that has been disturbed
as a result of the crime. Still according to the Constitutional Court Decision
above, if the abolition of the death penalty sanction is carried out, it will
certainly hurt the community's sense of justice because of the lack of social
harmony caused by the occurrence of crimes threatened with the death penalty.
Justice is only felt by the community when social harmony has been restored.
The abolition of the death penalty in Indonesia must be understood that the
historical awareness of the Indonesian people has not been able to accept the
abolition of the death penalty. Von Savigny, the pioneer philosopher of the
Mahzab of History, argued that: "the law is based on the national
character and the national soul of the nation concerned (volkgeist). Law is like a language that grows and develops in
national relations and becomes common property and also common
consciousness".95 According to the Mahzab of History, each
nation has a different history, so this makes each nation have different laws
and justice according to the character or soul of each country
CONCLUSION
That
the regulation of death penalty sanctions in the PTPK Law is stated in Article
2 paragraph (2) which formulates "in the event that the crime of
corruption as referred to in paragraph (1) is committed in certain
circumstances, the death penalty may be imposed". From the formulation of
this article, it can be seen that for the implementation of Article 2 paragraph
(2) of the PTPK Law, it is required first to fulfill the provisions contained
in the formulation of Article 2 paragraph (1) of the PTPK Law. Crimes in the
form of corruption crimes are very detrimental to the state. Then in certain
circumstances what is referred to is a circumstance that can be used as a
reason for criminal punishment for the perpetrators of corruption crimes,
namely if the criminal act is committed against funds intended for the
management of dangerous situations, national natural disasters, countermeasures
due to widespread social unrest, economic and monetary crisis management, and
repetition of corruption crimes. In addition to the provisions of Article 2 of
the PTPK Law, the threat of death penalty for perpetrators of corruption crimes
can also be imposed on criminal acts for the provisions contained in Articles
15 and 16 of the PTPK Law. Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. In
this sense, the state of law is the protection of human rights, including the
right to hudup. The right to life is regulated in Article 28 A and Article 28 I
paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Although the right to life has been guaranteed
by the constitution, the Indonesian constitution does not adhere to the
principle of absolute human rights, this can be seen from the provisions of
Article 28 J paragraph (2) of the Constitution as the closing article of the
chapter on human rights. The placement of this article as a closing article
means that it has given an interpretation that Articles 28 A to 28 I that
precede it are subject to the provisions of human rights restrictions contained
in Article 28 J of the 1945 Constitution. Thus, the imposition of the death
penalty for corruptors who have been hindered by human rights issues,
especially the right to life for a person.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amagnya, M. A. (2024). The Whiteman and gifts: Underlying
concepts influencing Ghanaian officials� explanation of corruption. Criminology
& Criminal Justice, 17488958241239788.
Brioschi, C. A. (2017). Corruption: a short history.
Brookings Institution Press.
Novita, D., & Tasya, R. (2024). COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE
IN THE ANTI-CORRUPTION PROGRAM AS AN EFFORT TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
GOALS. The Third International Conference on Government Education Management
and Tourism, 3, 30.
Prakoso, A. S., & Richard, R. (2024). The Role of the
Prosecutor�s Office in Resolving Criminal Corruption Cases. Devotion: Journal
of Research and Community Service, 5(7), 724�734.
Supriadi, M. R. P., Mukharrom, T., & Rahmah, P. J.
(2021). Corruption in infrastructure development in Indonesia during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Rigeo, 11(5).
Abu Fida� Abdur Rafi�, 2006, Terapi Penyakit Korupsi
dengan Tazkiyatun (Penyucian Jiwa), Republika, Jakarta
Anwar, Yesmil, dkk, 2009, Sistem
Peradilan Pidana: Konsep, Komponen & Pelaksanaannya dalam penegakan hukum
di Indonesia, Widya Padjajaran, Bandung.
Atmasasmita, Romli, 2004, Sekitar
Maalah Korupsi Aspek Nasional dan Aspek Internasional, Mandar Maju,
Bandung.� 2000,
Djaja, Ermansjah, 2009,
Memberantas Korupsi Bersama KPK: Kajian Yuridis Normatif uu Nomor 31 Tahun 1999
joncto UU Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 Versi UU Nomor 30 Tahun 2002, Sinas Grafika,
Jakarta.
Efendi, Jonaedi, 2010, Mafia
Hukum: Menguak Praktik Tersembunyi Jual Beli Hukum dan Alternatif
Pemberantasannya Dalam Perspektif Hukum Progresif, Prestasi Pustaka, Jakarta.
Hamid, Hamrad dan M. Husein,
1991, Pembahasan Permasalahan KUHAP Bidang Penyidikan, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.
Hamzah, Andi, 1985, Pengantar
Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia, Ghalia, Jakarta. _______, 2005, Perbandingan
Pemberantasan Korupsi di Berbagai Negara, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.
Hartianti, Evi, 2009, Tindak
Pidana Korupsi, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta. Jaya Putra Serikat, Nyoman, 2008,
Beberapa Pemikiran Ke Arah Pengembangan Hukum Pidana, PT. Citra Aditya Bakti,
Bandung.
Kelsan Hans, Teori Umum Hukum dan
Negara, Dasar-dasar Ilmu HukumNormatif sebagai Ilmu Hukum Deskriftif, ahli
bahasa Sumardi, BEE Media Indonesia, Jakarta
Manan, Abdul, 2006, Aspek-Aspek
Pengubah Hukum, Kencana Prenada Media, Jakarta. Marpaung, Leden, 2009, Proses
Penanganan Perkara Pidana, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.