HUKUMAN MATI BAGI KORUPTOR: ANTARA TEORI DAN PRAKTIK DALAM SISTEM HUKUM ACARA PIDANA DI INDONESIA

Abstract

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini menelaah pengaturan hukuman mati bagi koruptor dalam sistem hukum pidana Indonesia, mengkaji kesenjangan antara landasan hukum (Pasal 2 Ayat (2) UU No. 20/2001) dan penegakan hukum dalam peradilan, serta menilai kesesuaiannya dengan prinsip HAM dalam UUD 1945. Metode penelitian menggunakan pendekatan normatif melalui analisis undang-undang (statute approach), analitis, dan konseptual. Hasil studi menunjukkan bahwa meskipun hukum memperbolehkan hukuman mati dalam "keadaan tertentu" (misalnya korupsi dana bencana atau krisis ekonomi), hakim jarang menjatuhkannya karena tiga faktor: (1) kriteria "keadaan tertentu" tidak jelas, (2) pertimbangan HAM, dan (3) preferensi pada sanksi alternatif (penjara/denda). Secara konstitusional, hukuman mati tidak melanggar UUD 1945 (Pasal 28J) selama memenuhi prinsip keadilan sosial dan ketertiban umum. Namun, penegakannya masih kontroversial akibat tarik-menarik antara efek jera dan perlindungan HAM. Studi ini menyimpulkan bahwa pemberantasan korupsi memerlukan penegakan hukum yang konsisten, reformasi peradilan, dan pendekatan pencegahan holistik.

ABSTRACT

This study analyzes the regulation of the death penalty for corruption offenders within the Indonesian criminal law system, examining the gap between the legal basis (Article 2 Paragraph (2) of Law No. 20/2001) and law enforcement in the judiciary, as well as assessing its compliance with human rights principles in the 1945 Constitution. The research method employs a normative approach through statute analysis, analytical, and conceptual methods. The study’s findings indicate that although the law permits the death penalty under “certain circumstances” (such as corruption involving disaster funds or economic crises), judges rarely impose it due to three factors: (1) unclear criteria for “certain circumstances,” (2) human rights considerations, and (3) a preference for alternative sanctions (imprisonment/fines). Constitutionally, the death penalty does not violate the 1945 Constitution (Article 28J) as long as it fulfills the principles of social justice and public order. However, its enforcement remains controversial due to the tension between deterrent effects and human rights protection. This study concludes that eradicating corruption requires consistent law enforcement, judicial reform, and a holistic prevention approach.