Mixed views on police policy to shoot on sight

JAKARTA (JP): The police practice of shooting on sight is viewed in different lights by a member of the National Commission on Human Rights, a lawyer and a criminologist.

Deputy Chairman of the National Commission on Human Rights, Marzuki Darusman, says the shoot on sight policy does not violate human rights.

"The criminals violated other people's right to safety," Marzuki said in an interview.

Marzuki said the policy was only applied if police believed the alleged criminals were endangering other people's, or their own, lives.

Meanwhile, Jakarta's Legal Aid Institute's director Luhut MP. Pangaribuan and a criminologist from the University of Indonesia, Adrianus Meliala, said the rising crime rate should not be used to justify the gunning down of alleged criminals.

Adrianus said the police were there to guard public safety.

"Shooting criminals dead is the military way. Police action is to overwhelm criminals, not to kill them," he said.

Meanwhile police have openly defended the shootings.

National Police Chief Lt. Gen. Dibyo Widodo once said that he preferred to have criminals shot than his officers.

National Police Spokesman Brig. Gen. Nurfaizi said the police followed shooting procedure as determined at the 8th Congress of the United Nations, in Havana, Cuba, in 1990. It said that police were allowed to shoot criminals if they were endangering lives.

"We didn't shoot every criminal, did we?. All the shootings were carried out according to procedure," Nurfaizi said.

Nurfaizi said all the people shot dead were criminals who had tried to resist arrest, and had ignored warning shots.

But Marzuki said, "the police must have clear procedures, explaining under what circumstance officers in the field are allowed to shoot. The procedures should also rule that only senior officers are allowed to make the final decision to shoot."

Lawyer Luhut Pangaribuan said the shoot on sight policy would not solve crimes or stop people from committing them. "Crime should be tackled professionally and systematically," he said.

He and Marzuki agreed that the policy was a temporary step, a form of shock therapy to deter other criminals.

"It's just a short cut that will not solve the problem," Luhut said.

Criminologist Adrianus said shooting alleged criminals would only make them more violent. "They might think violence should be met with violence," Adrianus said.

Marzuki, Luhut and Adrianus said they believed the shoot on sight policy would not lower the crime rate.

At least 32 people, all allegedly criminals, have been shot dead by Jakarta police since January. Last year, the police shot dead 46 people in the capital for the same reason.

Many people speculate that the recent shootings of alleged criminals is a "rerun" of the mysterious shootings, known as petrus, in the early 1980s.

Between 1982 and 1984, hundreds of criminals were found dead in the city. Their bodies were dumped in the streets, in swamps and other public places.

The shootings drew a strong reaction from international human rights activists at the time.

Marzuki said criminals should not be hunted by officers. Officers must do their jobs according to clear standard procedures or they may shoot the wrong person.

If the families of someone shot by police believed their relative was innocent they might sue, Marzuki said.

He cited the case of Sofjan Sani, who was shot dead by other officers on April 1, in East Jakarta.

City Police Chief Maj. Gen. Hamami Nata said after the shooting that Sofjan was a civilian impersonating a police officer. He later admitted Sofjan was a police officer but said he had been caught extorting money from drivers.

Sofjan's parents plan to sue the police and complain to the rights commission.

Luhut said the government should set up a fact finding team to find out if the police involved in the fatal shootings had done their job properly. "The team should include commission members and independents," Luhut said.

He said rumors had it that police told criminals to run away, then shot them.

"But it's difficult to prove," he said. (jun/cst)

Editorial -- Page 4