Capital punishment: Public or private affair?

By Imanuddin

JAKARTA (JP): "Do you want to see a beheading? There's one going on later today," said an Indonesian taxi driver in Jeddah recently to an Indonesian visiting Saudi Arabia.

Executions are a normal spectacle in Saudi Arabia. The public, at least the locals, is encouraged to witness the beheadings as well as the more frequent floggings.

In some ways it is also intended for foreigners who are either visiting or working in the oil-rich kingdom. Two Indonesian workers were among the foreigners beheaded over the past year.

The message from the Saudi kingdom is clear -- stay away from crime or be subjected to the public spectacle.

Does this sound gruesome?

Maybe, but even in the most "civilized" countries such as United States, capital punishment is still a public spectacle, albeit in a more limited way.

Whether by gas, electric chair or injection, an execution must be witnessed by public representatives. This includes the media, law enforcement agencies and relatives of the condemned.

A few select journalists then get to give the rest of the world the blow-by-blow details of the death.

In contrast, for executions in Indonesia -- which are carried out by firing squad -- the authorities silence the guns.

No prior announcements are made, and even if the media gets wind of an imminent execution, the authorities try to conceal when and where it is going to take place.

By regulation, the authorities need only to inform the relatives of the convict beforehand in addition to the justice ministry, the prosecution office and the police, who provide the firing squad.

The execution is carried out in an isolated place and then the cadaver is returned to the relatives.

In the past, news of some executions has only reached the public weeks or months later, and often only because the media found out by chance.

Chan Tin Chong, a Malaysian convicted of heroin smuggling, was executed in Jakarta last January. But it became public knowledge only a month later amid a renewed capital punishment debate.

The media did manage to get wind of two executions this year before they were carried out. That of Kacong Laranu, a retired Army sergeant major who killed four people, and Karta Cahyadi, a convicted triple murderer. Kacong was executed on Jan. 31 in Central Sulawesi and Karta on April 26 in Jakarta.

But the reporters sent to cover the two executions missed them because the firing squad convoys managed to elude reporters by covering their tracks.

But at least one legal expert now questions the wisdom of maintaining silence.

Amid the recent debate on whether or not Indonesia should enforce capital punishment, Muladi, a law professor and rector of Diponegoro University in Semarang, Central Java, feels that executions should be made a public spectacle if they are to have any effect in reducing crime rates.

Muladi, also a member of the National Commission on Human Rights, said executions should be considered as "shock therapy" not only for the convicts, but also for the rest of society.

People should be encouraged, or at least allowed, to see the executions with their own eyes, Muladi said. "It will haunt an ex-convict wanting to commit more crimes or make a would-be- criminal think twice before breaking the law."

Other experts disagree with Muladi's proposal and feel that the idea should be discussed extensively first.

Andi Muis, a law professor at Hasanuddin University in Ujungpandang, South Sulawesi, feels that Muladi's proposal could be implemented here selectively and should at least be studied to see if public executions would deter criminal activity.

"There is no regulation prohibiting execution before a crowd of people," Andi said, adding that executions here are chiefly held behind doors for "ethical" reasons.

Andi feels, however, that public executions are not relevant for present-day Indonesia.

He recalled that during Japan's military occupation, two thieves were executed in public. And while crime may have subsided temporarily, he said the crime rate continued to rise shortly thereafter.

"In today's modern world, where sophisticated communication systems are available everywhere, the effect of a public execution is more or less the same as a closed one," he said. "Even though they're held openly, not all will be influenced by the shock therapy."

An execution witnessed by reporters, however, could filter the necessary information to the public, he said.

"It is already shocking enough if the execution is covered by the press," he said, adding that press coverage would reveal the impact of the execution.

Martin Hutabarat, chairman of the Golkar-run Legal Aid and Supervision Institute, is also anti-public execution.

"I doubt that public executions will lower the crime rate," he said, adding that the proposal should be studied and discussed among professionals, including psychologists.

"Our consideration for humanity, inspired by the five principles of Pancasila, cannot accept a man being executed in front of us."

I Nyoman Suwandha, Deputy Attorney General for General Crimes, said he believes any proposal intended to fight crime is worth looking into.

"Changes in the execution policy could be included in a future Criminal Code," he told The Jakarta Post.

He declined to comment specifically on Muladi's proposal.

"That's the authority of the House of Representatives and the government to discuss legal amendments regarding executions,"he said.

"We're the executors," he added. "We don't make the laws, only follow them."

Furthermore, he believes that executions should be held behind closed doors in order to avoid the likelihood of crowd disturbances.

"Police executors need quiet surroundings to carry out an execution," he said.