More experts hail death sentence for Siswanto

More experts hail death sentence for Siswanto

JAKARTA (JP): Two more legal experts have voiced approval of
the death sentence that was handed down to Siswanto, alias Robot
Gedek, for the premeditated murder and sexual abuse of 12 boys.

They said the sentence, handed down by the Central Jakarta
District Court recently, was not against human rights.

Baharuddin Lopa, secretary-general of the National Commission
on Human Rights and a former chief of the South Sulawesi
Prosecutor's Office, said the court did not need to give Robot a
psychological examination because there was enough material
evidence to support the verdict.

Former deputy chief justice Adi Andojo Soetjipto said Robot
deserved the death sentence because he had committed unforgivable
crimes.

"He is the most undesirable creature in society and even if
the court jailed him for life, nothing would make him repent,"
said Adi, who just retired from the Supreme Court.

"Whether executed or jailed for life, he would remain
unchanged," Baharrudin said.

He said he could not understand why Robot was shocked by the
sentence. "How come he was so shocked? He should have been
shocked when sodomizing those poor boys."

Baharuddin, a former director general of the Ministry of
Justice's correctional institutions, said killers always behaved
like an insane person during their trials.

According to him the environment, inborn tendencies, education
and economic conditions also influenced killers.

Adi said intellectual capability had nothing to do with
murder.

"We have seen a lot of educated people who could kill anybody
they wanted. The only difference between the educated and
uneducated in this case is that the former can cover their crimes
in a sophisticated way, while the latter -- like Robot -- are
simpler," Adi said.

Adi said the court's refusal to do a psychological examination
of Robot was acceptable, and that Robot's sexual behavior did not
prove that he was insane. "Many sane people have the same problem
but they don't kill people.

"Judges have the capacity to reject defense lawyer's requests
for such an examination if they find the defendant is
communicative enough during trial," Adi said.

He said Robot had appealed to the High Court, which means his
case would be reviewed.

Both Baharuddin and Adi both said that Indonesia was very
selective when it came to meting out the death penalty.

Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation chairman Bambang Widjojanto
said the sentence was premature.

"Having an expert witness is a defendant's right, as
stipulated in the Penal Code in order to get to the truth. And it
is a lawyer's responsibility to make it happen, although it was
the judges' right to reject it," Bambang said.

Bambang said the judges could not instantaneously rule out the
presence of an expert witness just because they believed the
defendant was sane enough.

"Judges are not psychologists, whereas there are rules which
regulate ways to measure someone's mental health. Judges don't
have the capability to decide just by judging a defendant's
physical appearance or communication abilities," Bambang said.

He said such a violation of a defendant's rights often
happened here because there was no institution to protect a
defendant's rights.

A law expert at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, Loebby
Loqman, earlier said the defendant should have been given a trial
period to rehabilitate himself before sentencing was decided.

But Baharuddin said presiding judge Sartono had stated the
sentence was clear-cut and designed to protect the public.
(12/10)