1

This House Would give less punishment to the poor

Background: The number of cases of poor people who smell of crime in a state of force
{example cases etc} + they certainly have different motivations / goals / intentions from
those who commit crimes with middle to upper income (socioeconomic factor)  resulting in
criminal sanctions ( Questions: Should the sanctions be the same as people whose opinions
are middle to upper?)
The purpose and role of law needs to be researched and reconstructed to understand its
essence.

Goals: Effective justice system for the people

Definition:
Punishment: A penalty given fairly in accordance with the crime committed by the convicted
person with the aim of providing a deterrent effect, a sense of repentance, and
countermeasures so that the defendant does not commit a crime again.

Poor: Those who cannot meet their needs primarily, usually they are homeless figures who do
not have a house and do not have a permanent job and are not even able to support
themselves to live. (proletariat)

Characterization/Parameters:
Punishment: imprisonment (pemenjaraan)

Poor: The poverty line is set at Rp 535,000 per person/month or Rp 2.32 million per
family/month. Based on BPS or the Central Bureau of Statistics.

Status Quo: Indonesia adheres to the maximum criminal law system or in other words the
decision of how long a person will be imprisoned depends on the decision of the judge by
meeting the maximum limit (this is not regulated by the state)

Main Argument:
Purpose of punishment (imprisonment)  Provide a deterrent effect to criminals under the
pretext that they will not commit crimes again in the future.
 2

1. Socioeconomics reason.
a) you need to understand why “crimes occur”  poor people (obviously) has different set of
motivation than rich or upper class people.
Poor people  do crimes in order to survive (in a condition of low income country, they
obviously do more crimes) this is what Galuh Firmansyah does, a man from surabaya who
steals from Indomaret just to eat Indomie because he’s not eaten for days. Another example:
USA “The Bread Thief"

Is it still right or effective to imprison them? Answer: Recividism (the tendency of a

convicted criminal to reoffend or do the crimes again)
When someone is doing crime for the sake of surviving (stealing foods, money, etc) in a very
poor situation. They’d certainly doing it again, why? Because he’s still poor regardless of
how many times he’s been in prison for over years.

This also tends to make people become hardly find a job as he has history of being criminals

Actor: poor people

Imagine yourself as a dying mother with no talent whatsoever + you are with your kids who
has poor condition  forcefully, steal food from market place or restaurants  then, just for
you to get punish with Articles 362 of KUHP with maximum 5 years sentence, meanwhile
your kids are about to die. What do you do as a judge? This also what happen with a mother
during a cases in pandemic covid where she forcefully steal a groceries of basic necessities in
order to feed herself and her child.

Even if you doing the punishment and then he goes out from imprisonment, does that change
the fact his life are still poor and he can’t get a Job because of his history as a criminal?
That’s what i want to consider ladies and gettlement of how Unjust our legal system is and
that’s exactly what happen with the cases.

b) Government  need to recosinder their own socioeconomics before imprisoning the poor.
For instance: Prison is not free  Incarceration is expensive for both taxpayers and the
criminal justice system. The resources spent on imprisoning the poor could be more
effectively used for prevention, education, and social programs that address the root causes of
 3

crime. Studies have shown that alternatives to imprisonment can be more cost-effective in
reducing recidivism (example: Vera Institute of Justice Study (2018)  Vera's report, "The
Price of Prisons: What Incarceration Costs Taxpayers," highlights the high costs of
imprisonment and suggests that investing in diversion programs, substance abuse treatment,
and mental health services can be more cost-effective in reducing crime and recidivism.

Overcrowded imprisonment: The practice of imprisoning the poor contributes to

overcrowded prisons, leading to unsafe and inhumane conditions. Overcrowding hinders the
ability of correctional facilities to provide necessary programs and services for rehabilitation.
(Evidence & Studies: National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Report (2019); The Vera
Institute of Justice (2018): & American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Report (2018))

2. Jurispundence.
a.) "Rich Offender, Poor Offender: Why It (Sometimes) Matters in Sentencing" by Mirko
Bagaric  is a paper that discusses the issue of economically and socially disadvantaged
offenders in sentencing. The paper examines the extent to which poverty mitigates penalty
severity in the sentencing calculus and proposes key law reform proposals to properly and
best accommodate poverty in the sentencing calculus.
Here are some key points from the paper:
 The problem of economically and socially disadvantaged offenders is one of the most
perplexing issues in sentencing.
 Poverty should be taken into account in the sentencing calculus, and aggravating
factors that operate unjustly against the poor should be abolished or moderated.
 The paper proposes key law reform proposals to properly and best accommodate
poverty in the sentencing calculus, such as the introduction of a poverty discount, the
abolition of mandatory minimum sentences, and the introduction of a poverty
threshold.
 The paper also examines the impact of poverty on access to justice and the need for
legal aid services to ensure that low-income individuals have access to justice.
 The paper concludes that poverty should be taken into account in the sentencing
calculus, and that law reform proposals should be implemented to properly and best
accommodate poverty in the sentencing calculus.
 4

Quoted:
“underprivileged do not choose poverty, as well as the difficulty associated with rising above
impoverishment, there are ostensibly strong reasons for treating disadvantaged offenders
more leniently. Disadvantage limits opportunity and choice and often leads to rebellious
behaviour.”

b) "The Criminalization of Poverty: A Comparative Perspective" by the International Journal

of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 
The paper examines how poverty is criminalized through various policies and practices, such
as the imposition of fines and fees, the criminalization of homelessness, and the use of the
criminal justice system to enforce welfare policies. The paper also proposes solutions to
address the issue of the criminalization of poverty.
Here are some key points from the paper:
 Poverty is criminalized through various policies and practices, such as the imposition
of fines and fees, the criminalization of homelessness, and the use of the criminal
justice system to enforce welfare policies.
 The criminalization of poverty has a disproportionate impact on marginalized
communities, such as people of color and immigrants.
 The paper examines the criminalization of poverty in different countries, including the
United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
 The paper proposes solutions to address the issue of the criminalization of poverty,
such as the decriminalization of homelessness, the elimination of fines and fees, and
the provision of adequate social services to address poverty.
Quoted:
“The criminalization of poverty is a global phenomenon that has a disproportionate impact on
marginalized communities, including people of color, immigrants, and those experiencing
homelessness. The use of the criminal justice system to enforce welfare policies, the
imposition of fines and fees, and the criminalization of homelessness are just a few examples
of how poverty is criminalized. To address this issue, it is necessary to decriminalize poverty,
eliminate fines and fees, and provide adequate social services to address poverty.”