{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1771550,
        "msgid": "human-rights-minister-bans-police-from-shooting-muggers-1780032405",
        "date": "2026-05-29 09:45:56",
        "title": "Human Rights Minister Bans Police from Shooting Muggers",
        "author": "",
        "source": "DETIK",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Legal",
        "summary": "Indonesian Human Rights Minister Natalius Pigai has prohibited police from shooting street robbers (begal) on the spot, asserting it violates human rights and due process. Prominent lawyer Hotman Paris Hutapea has criticised the stance, arguing for self-defence when families face muggings. The debate underscores the tension between legal principles and public safety concerns in Indonesia.",
        "content": "<p>A recent dispute has arisen between Human Rights Minister Natalius\nPigai and prominent lawyer Hotman Paris Hutapea over violent robbery\ncrimes known as begal. Human Rights Minister Natalius Pigai has\nprohibited police from shooting begal suspects on the scene, stating\nsuch actions clearly violate human rights. \u2018I do not permit shooting\nwithout clear legal procedures. Begal suspects must not be shot on the\nspot,\u2019 Pigai said on May 22, 2026, according to Detikcom. Pigai stated\nthat shooting suspects on the spot fundamentally contradicts human\nrights principles. Under international law, violent offenders, including\nterrorists, must be apprehended. Pigai\u2019s remarks were strongly contested\nby Hotman Paris. The wealthy lawyer, commonly known as Bang Hotman,\nurged Pigai to exercise empathy before making such statements. \u2018Begals\nare everywhere. You say shooting them violates human rights. Imagine\nyour family or wife being mugged. Would you say shooting them violates\nrights?\u2019 Hotman said, as reported by Suara on May 22, 2026. In my view,\nneither of the two figures is wrong; their positions depend on context\nand situation. Before elaborating further on my opinion, I begin by\nexplaining unlawful acts not punished due to legal justifications. Such\nacts can be committed by civilians or law enforcement officers,\nincluding police. The purpose of law includes maintaining public order,\nensuring safety, and protecting human rights. To achieve these, law\nenforcement officers from the police (Polri), prosecutors, judges, and\nthe military (TNI for national defence) are required. To meet these\nlegal objectives, law enforcement officers carry out preventive measures\nsuch as police patrols and take legal action against offenders. Here, we\nfocus on legal action against offenders. The crime in question is\nbegal\u2014street robbers who commit violent theft or forced robbery. Trias\nHukum Pidana In criminal law, three key elements exist: (1) criminal\nacts; (2) criminal liability; and (3) criminal sanctions. These are\ncollectively referred to as the \u2018Trias in Criminal Law\u2019 (Topo Santoso,\n2023:226). First, criminal acts. Moeljatno defines them as actions\nprohibited by law and punishable for violators (Hiariej, 225:115). Johan\nChristoph Gerhard Jonker states that a criminal act is one punishable\nunder law. His broader definition describes it as intentional or\nnegligent conduct violating the law by a responsible individual\n(Hiariej, p.115). Second, criminal liability. Van Hamel defines it as a\nnormal mental state and competence involving three abilities: (1)\nunderstanding the meaning and consequences of one\u2019s actions; (2)\nrecognising that acts conflict with public order; and (3) the capacity\nto determine one\u2019s will. Thus, those unable to bear criminal liability\nunder this definition include the mentally ill and children. Third,\ncriminal sanctions. \u2018Punishment\u2019 can mean (1) penalties imposed on\nlawbreakers; (2) a judge\u2019s ruling; or (3) the consequence of sentencing\n(Topo Santoso, 2023:502). Thus, criminal sanctions refer to penalties\nimposed on those committing criminal acts as described above. Under\nArticle 10 of the old Criminal Code (KUHP), there are two types of\npunishments: primary penalties\u2014death, imprisonment, detention, and\nfines\u2014and additional penalties\u2014revocation of certain rights, asset\nconfiscation, and publication of court rulings. The National Criminal\nCode (Law No.\u00a01 of 2023) outlines similar provisions in Articles 64-69.\nUnpunishable Criminal Acts First, unpunishable acts regulated by law.\nHere, two codes are referenced: the old Criminal Code (Law No.\u00a01 of\n1946), set to expire by end-December 2025, and the National Criminal\nCode (Law No.\u00a01 of 2023). Types of unpunishable acts, particularly\nconcerning justifiable defence, include coercion (overmacht). Coercion\nis addressed in Article 48 of the old Criminal Code and Article 42 of\nthe National Criminal Code. Article 48 of the old Criminal Code states:\n\u2018Anyone committing an act under the influence of coercion shall not be\npunished\u2019. Article 42 of the National Criminal Code states: \u2018No person\ncommitting a criminal act shall be punished if: (a) forced by\nirresistible force; or (b) compelled by unavoidable threats or\npressure\u2019. Second, self-defence (noodweer). Article 49(1) of the old\nCriminal Code states: \u2018No punishment for acts of self-defence for\noneself or others, honour, morality, or property, in response to an\nimminent unlawful attack\u2019. Self-defence under the National Criminal Code\nis outlined in Article 34: \u2019No punishment for those compelled to commit\nprohibited acts if the act ter<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/human-rights-minister-bans-police-from-shooting-muggers-1780032405",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}