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)