Criminologist: Shoot-on-Sight Only Allowed If Life Threatened

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - Haniva Hasna, a criminologist from the University of Indonesia, stated that shoot-on-sight measures against muggers may only be carried out if there is a genuine threat to life. Such action may also be taken if the suspect resists and other measures are no longer effective, deeming the situation urgent. Moreover, the primary aim of such action is to stop the threat posed by the suspect, not as punishment. Without strict regulations, repressive actions risk mission creep, where emergency powers are gradually normalised. ‘The phrase “resisting officers” must not be an elastic term open to arbitrary interpretation,’ Haniva explained. A rule of law state like Indonesia must distinguish between suspects fleeing, resisting, and those genuinely threatening life. Police must understand concrete threat standards when taking action, such as suspects attacking or wielding lethal weapons that endanger civilians. Furthermore, police objectivity in deciding whether to shoot must be developed through training, bodycam footage, post-incident reviews, and external oversight. Therefore, any lethal action must be legally and ethically testable, and not carried out arbitrarily. Officers must also be able to justify their repressive actions and prove that the suspect indeed posed a life-threatening risk. If not legally and ethically scrutinised, there is concern that shoot-on-sight measures could be misused by unscrupulous individuals. Haniva stated that shoot-on-sight measures would not effectively curb muggings unless underlying issues are addressed. In criminology, street crime is often linked to societal issues within communities.