Death penalties hottest trial news from Jakarta's courtrooms

By Ahmad Junaidi

JAKARTA (JP): Trials in the city were marked this year by court decisions giving the death sentence to two defendants for committing murders.

The first death sentence was given on May 13 by the Central Jakarta District Court to Harnoko Dewantono, alias Oki, 32. The second was given on May 21 by the same court to Siswanto, alias Robot Gedek, 33.

Oki's trial started on June 27, 1996, after it was debated whether he could be tried here because the murders took place in Los Angeles between 1991 and 1992.

Oki denied killing Suresh, but presiding judge IGK Sukarata still sentenced Oki to death, the maximum penalty possible because the defendant was charged, under Article 340 of the Criminal Code, with premeditated murder.

Prosecutor J. Kamaru had asked the court to sentence the defendant to death but Oki and his lawyers, including Henry Yosodiningrat, asked the court to sentence Oki to only serve a life sentence.

On Sept. 9, the Jakarta High Court upheld the district court's verdict and Oki now is awaiting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Robot was given the death sentence for killing 12 boys.

The verdict, which was decided by presiding judge Sartono, was supported by law experts because of Robot's sadistic acts.

Robot and his lawyer Najab Khan are now awaiting an appeal to the Jakarta High Court.

Central Jakarta District Court gave seven students heavy sentences; sentences which were also aimed at discouraging the public, especially junior and senior high school students, from brawling.

The seven students were sentenced on Sept. 8 to an average four months to six months jail each. Six other students are still being tried in the same court, also on charges of killing another student in a separate brawl.

Another case which attracted major public attention was the trial of television actress Zarima Mirafsur, alias Zarina, who was charged with possession of 29,677 Ecstasy pills.

On June 5, the West Jakarta District Court stated the 25-year- old actress was guilty of violating the 1992 Health Law by keeping the pills in her house.

Presiding judge Sumantri sentenced Zarina, who before her trial escaped from police custody, to four years in jail. Zarina fainted when she heard the verdict.

The maximum penalty for this offense is 15 years.

Zarina and her lawyers, including Amir Syamsuddin, are now waiting for a decision from the Supreme Court.

Following Zarina's trial, many similar cases were tried under a new law, Law No. 5/1997 on psychotropic drugs, which was endorsed by the House of Representatives in January.

The law carries heavier penalties for smugglers, dealers and users of these drugs.

Other Ecstasy cases involving dozens of discotheque patrons also went to court this year. The defendants, mainly young men and women, were tried for consuming the pills and most were sentenced to an average three months in jail.

The prosecution presented evidence obtained from forensic expert Abdul Mun'im Idries, which showed there were traces of Ecstasy in the defendants' urine.

The involvement of Mun'im in police raids against drug users in discotheques was criticized by the Indonesian Doctors Association, which said that his involvement was unethical and violated the doctor's pledge.

In once case, a judge in the West Jakarta District Court also questioned Mun'im about his involvement, but Mun'im defended himself by saying that he could not refuse since he was invited by the police. He also said that a forensic doctor's duty was different from the one of a medical doctor.

After the brief misunderstanding, the forensic doctor continued giving statements against defendants in similar cases in the Central and West Jakarta District Courts.

The Ecstasy cases were apparently intended to administer a kind of shock therapy to the public, especially to drug users.

Other drug cases, including heroin smuggling involving many Nigerians, also attracted public attention.

At least four Nigerians were sentenced to between six years and 17 years in jail at the Central Jakarta District Court this year for attempted heroin smuggling.

Most of the Nigerians said they entered the country to buy garments at Tanah Abang market in Central Jakarta.

Some said that many foreigners have tried to smuggle heroin or Ecstasy pills into the country because the punishment for drug trafficking was "too light".

Some drug traffickers, especially Ecstasy dealers, were reportedly sentenced to only a few months because they could pay certain people to help with their trials.

A Singaporean defendant, for example, who had been earlier indicted with trafficking about 2,000 pills, was sentenced to only eight months in jail.

The Central Jakarta District Court stated that the defendant was guilty of possessing 19 pills. The man was then released because he had already been detained for eight months.

But, on Dec. 10, a prosecutor asked the South Jakarta District Court to sentence a young Nepalese man to death for trafficking 1.29 kilograms of heroin.

Will the 23-year-old student become the third defendant to get the death penalty? If the trial is not adjourned, the court will decide on a sentence before the end of this year.

Now, approaching the end of the year, the case of murdered businessman Nyo Beng Seng is once again attracting public attention. Police have arrested and questioned four prosecutors for allegedly falsifying a witness' statements during the trial.

During the trial, the prosecutors were believed to have engineered the statements of Kikie Ariyanto against defendant Hasan, alias Eng San.

On June 12, Eng San was sentenced by the North Jakarta District Court to 17 years in jail for his role in the 1994 murder of Nyo Beng Seng.

Some experts have said the prosecutors' arrests were unethical, adding that the police should have asked their superiors to handle the arrests and questioning.

Others have said that the arrests were legal since the prosecutors, like many other citizens, were suspected of committing a crime.

This case exposes disharmony among law enforcers, especially between police as the investigators and the prosecutors.

Will this incident go to court? Who will become the prosecutor against colleagues who have become defendants? It will probably be one of the interesting trials for next year.