Punishments for those who commit corruption are still too light, failing to create a deterrent effect. The repayment of state losses has also not been in line with expectations.
By
·4 minutes read
ANTARA FOTO/APRILLIO AKBAR
People from the Central Tapanuli Society Movement (Gema Tapteng) stage a rally outside the KPK building in Jakarta on Thursday (26/4/2018). They demanded that the KPK investigate a case implicating graft convict Akil Mochtar, the former Constitutional Court chief judge, which is alleged to have also been involved in a case against Central Tapanuli regent Bakhtiar Ahmad Sibarani, who reportedly initiated the bribery.
JAKARTA, KOMPAS — A legal breakthrough is needed to create a deterrent effect for corruption perpetrators. Prison sentences must be optimized and complemented by other penalties, such as the seizure of assets obtained through corruption. Revoking political and financial rights must also be done.
Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) assessment results published on Thursday (3/5/2018) in Jakarta show that the average prison sentence for corruption convicts in 2017 was only two years and two months. The average was the same in 2016.
The light sentences are in line with the low demands made by state prosecutors. The ICW noted that during the second half of 2017, prosecutors\' average demand in corruption cases was three years and two months.
At the same time, other forms of punishment, namely the return of state losses, had also not been commensurate to the total state losses caused by the corruption.
In 2017, state losses due to corruption reached Rp 29.4 trillion. However, additional penalties in the form of replacement money decided by the judges was only Rp 1.4 trillion or only 4.91 percent of the total state financial losses caused by corruption.
This occurs because Article 18 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on corruption eradication states that corruption convicts may be liable to pay replacement money, the amount of which can only be up to the maximum value of assets acquired from the corruption.
ICW Judiciary Monitoring Division Head Tama S. Langkun said the low return of state losses could actually be covered by the imposition of money laundering crime (TPPU). However, not many corruption cases are accompanied by TPPU indictment. According to ICW notes, only four corruption cases were accompanied by the TPPU indictment, and this was done by the prosecutors, and not by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
Disparity of verdicts
In several corruption cases, the ICW also found disparities in verdicts. This condition has the potential to hurt people\'s sense of justice.
"There was a village head and an entrepreneur both found guilty of corruption. The village chief caused state losses of about Rp 173 million, while the businessman Rp 3.7 billion. They were both initially sentenced to six years in prison, but both eventually only had to serve five years. There was also a case where state organizers caused state losses of Rp 22 billion. However, they got different sentences, seven years and eight years in prison," said Tama.
This has the potential to make the public question the basis of judges\' considerations in deciding corruption cases.
Supreme Court Spokesman Suhadi said that in examining cases, many things had to be considered. "As with the case of theft, there are heavy and light sentences. Not all corruption perpetrators are severely punished because they are adjusted to the state losses cause by their actions, as well as role of the person in the corruption. If it is generalized that everything must be heavy, of course it is not fair," he said.
ANTARA FOTO/RENO ESNIR
Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) spokesman Febri Diansyah briefs reporters during a press conference at the KPK Merah Putih building in Jakarta on Wednesday (12/4/2017).
Separately, KPK spokesman Febri Diansyah said in the Corruption Eradication Law, there were a number of articles, such as articles 5, 11, 12 A-Paragraph 2 and Article 13, which carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison. "Therefore, when the demand is 4 or 5 years, it should be categorized as heavy or maximum because the maximum threat is 5 years," he said.
Consideration as a justice collaborator (perpetrators working with law enforcers to reveal the case), continued Febri, also should be calculated in the demand.
Other punishments
Criminal law lecturer at Parahyangan Catholic University in Bandung, Agustinus Pohan, said the average two years and two months sentence had been classified as low for corruption cases, which constitute an extraordinary crime. In fact, long prison sentences, said Pohan, were not enough to daunt people from committing corruption. Other punishments are needed such as the seizure of property and imposition of social sanctions.
Rimawan Pradiptyo, a crime economics expert who is also Head of Gadjah Mada University\'s Laboratory of Economics, Yogyakarta, encouraged the implementation of financial sanctions through the calculation of social costs. The social costs of corruption take into account corruption damages, in the form of both visible and invisible costs.
These social costs of corruption, Rimawan added, could be applied using the compensation arrangements in the Criminal Law Procedures Code or the Corruption Law.
A member of the House of Representatives Commission III, Arsul Sani, said, in the discussion of the Draft Criminal Code social work crime which can bring shame effect for the corruptors is also discussed.
Another breakthrough, Arsul said, was the revocation of financial rights, namely the civil right of the convicted person to have assets exceeding a certain amount after leaving prison. It is already regulated in Article 18 Paragraph (1) of Law No 31/1999.
