When justice and the water buffalo collide
Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
Two men, tried separately for murder in the same court. Both were charged under Article 338 of the Criminal Code.
In the first case, an indigent 16-year-old pleads guilty to stabbing his employer in a fit of rage. In the second, a tycoon refuses to admit he shot a waiter in the head at point blank range in a crowded bar.
In both cases the evidence was overwhelming.
The final verdict -- six months apart -- guilty as charged.
The sentence: eight years for teenager Harlan Adi Majreha; seven years for businessman Adiguna Sutowo.
There is no question that the Central Jakarta District Court faithfully applied the law, but was justice served?
If correction is part of punishment's intent what does it say about the lesser sentence for someone who stuck a gun to a man's temple and coolly pulled the trigger, compared to a teenager who openly lamented his momentary lapse of sanity.
Adiguna has never expressed regret for killing a man in public.
Despite also being guilty of the illegal possession of a firearm -- the murder weapon used to kill waiter Johannes 'Rudy' Natong -- the court seemed to think it inappropriate to add further time for Adiguna.
Even Soeharto's grandson, Ari Sigit, was sentenced to a year in prison for the illegal possession of a lethal weapon.
Can we then conclude that Adiguna was only sentenced to six years in prison for murder with an additional one year for his firearms conviction?
Judges claim prosecutors were too harsh in demanding a life sentence.
It is unlikely that Adiguna will serve his full sentence. In a year's time, Adiguna's lawyers can expect further reductions in subsequent years with annual remissions ceremonially handed out on Aug. 17 independence day.
Soeharto's son, Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala Putra, who is in jail for ordering the murder of a judge, for example, was given a six month remission last year on his 15 year sentence.
Who are the two convicted that judges would be so "lenient"?
Harlan, except to his parents and close friends, is a nobody. One of millions of nameless teens faced with daily hardship. He claims he was often verbally abused while working as a domestic helper at the victim's house. An argument one September afternoon led to the murder.
The prosecution's recommended sentence of 10 years was reduced to just eight.
"We took the defendant's age into consideration," the judge remarked.
Adiguna, on the other hand, is everything Harlan isn't, and is never likely to be. A silver spoon never dangling far from his mouth, the owner of hotels, restaurants and magazines, Adiguna is the progeny of New Order patronage.
He is the type of person who believes it right to tote a gun to a New Year party just because his brother owns the posh venue -- a man who thinks it appropriate to put a bullet in a waiter's head because of a rejected credit card.
Though Harlan and Adiguna were treated equally before the law, justice, apparently, still bends to privilege.
Lawyers for the victim's family described Adiguna's seven year sentence as "outrageous". But it was Rudy's own father who submitted a letter to the court forgiving Adiguna and pleading for leniency.
The letter was promptly sent after Adiguna's brother met with Rudy's family to present a water buffalo and other undisclosed offerings as an "expression of condolence". The two families anointed kin in a traditional ceremony.
No one should blame Rudy's father for being pragmatic after such a horrendous loss. To forgive, they say, is divine.
But moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. In this case, the judges gave leniency a bad name.
Nevertheless, we should at least be thankful that our courts faithfully execute the letter of the law in respect of an obscure teenager in the same way as they would against a rich, well- connected, businessman.
The caveat being justice dependent upon who can afford a water buffalo.