LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DEATH PENALTY FOR DRUG DEALERS IN INDONESIA FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT

Abstract

This study examines the juridical analysis of the implementation of the death penalty for drug kingpins in Indonesia from the perspectives of human rights (HAM) and punishment objectives. Using a normative juridical research method with statute, conceptual, and comparative approaches, this study identifies a fundamental normative tension between the positive law framework permitting capital punishment under Law Number 35 of 2009 on Narcotics and international human rights norms protecting the right to life as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The analysis reveals that although Constitutional Court Decision Number 2-3/PUU-V/2007 affirmed the constitutionality of capital punishment under Article 28J of the 1945 Constitution, its application must be reconciled with Indonesia's international obligations under ICCPR, which restricts capital punishment to the 'most serious crimes'. Assessed through competing penal theories—Beccaria's abolitionist approach versus Bentham's utilitarian calculus, and Muladi's integrative theory versus Barda Nawawi Arief's social protection doctrine—the death penalty for narcotics offenders presents unresolved normative tensions. This study concludes that while the death penalty remains legally permissible under Indonesian positive law, procedural safeguards must be strengthened, mandatory death sentences should be abolished, and law reform toward proportionate and rehabilitative sentencing is urgently recommended.