Speaker 1 of Government Team: Deanita

First off all, I would like to point out that we agree with the motion, “corruptors who are proven
guilty will be sentenced to death” because Corruption has become a serious disease in this
country and is very difficult to cure. Various efforts to prevent and eliminate corrupt practices
have often been carried out. Both with the formation of laws and regulations as well as the
formation of commissions or the prevention of corruption. However, corruption never wants
to leave the Indonesian people. There is corruption in the executive branch, as well as in the
legislature and judiciary. Not to mention in several state-owned enterprises and non-ministerial
state institutions. The phenomenon of corruption has made the state of the country is weakening
and is getting worse. Because corruption has taken people's rights by force. However, law
enforcement against the perpetrators is not going well. Corrupts are punished lightly. However,
the law provides for the death penalty for the perpetrators. The community hopes that the
perpetrators of corruption are punished with the severest severity, so that justice and public
welfare can be fulfilled.
Qualification as an extraordinary crime is useless if in practice it is managed normally. Former
Supreme Court Justice, Artidjo Alkostar criticized the legislators who half-heartedly included
the death penalty for corruption. If the Law on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption
did not make complicated requirements for imposing a death sentence, the complicated
requirement in question is the explanation of Article 2 paragraph (2) in article 20 of 2001 of
constitution. The previous rule, Article 2 paragraph (2) in article 31 of 1999 of the constitution
only states "in the event that the criminal act of corruption as referred to in paragraph (1) is
committed under certain circumstances, the death penalty may be applied". A new requirement
appeared in 2001, namely the explanation of article 2 paragraph (2). The death penalty can only
be applied if it fulfills one of the conditions: the funds that are corrupted are expected to be
used to overcome dangers, national natural disasters, response to widespread social
consequences, economic and monetary crises, or criminal acts of corruption.

Speaker 1 of Opposition Team: Febrian

OK, good afternoon, ladies and gentlement. First of all, let's introduce from the opposition
team. I'm Febrian Alkindy Putra as the first speaker. And next to me, there Essra Novenda
Aghastya Pramara as a second speaker. Then there's Sabrina Nur Halisa as the third speaker.
And last there is a Hafidh Riyangga Saputra as the reply speaker.
Now, we are dealing with motion of the corrupt should be punished by death. So also with the
government team, the argument is quite interesting, and I agree about the definition that you
have mentioned. However, if indeed the corruptors it should be put to death? No. Absolutely
not. In this case, we as a team the opposition declared that the vote of the corruptors should be
sentenced to death is wrong. We don't approve it. Then, we didn't talk without a clear basis.
So, here, we will explain that it is indeed the death penalty, mainly for the corruptors that it is
not suitable and doesn't need to be used.
So, first, we declared that the death penalty for the corruptors is actually does not exist in the
law of Indonesia, even the world. The regulations specifically indicate that the death penalty is
not reserved for the corruptors. The second point, the decision for the death penalty for
corruptors certainly not economically profitable. Why? Because it's certainly not going to solve
the budget has been lost, while in fact, a refund of the corruptors are still often hampered. On
the third point, the state that establishes the death penalty for corruptors not better than
countries that don't apply the death penalty. The third of these points, of course we will explain
later, along with the facts that are on the field, that we did see actual and events that exist, not
just theoretical and textual.
OK, allow me to convey the idea of us about why the death penalty it shouldn't be implemented.
Okay, we'll start in the laws and regulations of Indonesia. In Law number 31 year 1999 on the
eradication of criminal acts of corruption. We reflect on the act, mentioned in article 2, first
paragraph, that any person who violates the law to enrich themselves or any other person or
corporation and harm the state, sentenced to the most short-lived 4 years in prison and a
maximum of 20 years in prison, with a maximum fine of 1 billion rupiah. In the second verse
then mentioned, that in certain circumstances, the death penalty can be imposed. But, wait. As
You say, that in this verse there is still an explanation, what is meant by a particular state is a
state of danger, natural disasters national, the repetition of criminal acts of corruption, as well
as when the economic and monetary crisis. That is, the death penalty is indeed not fully
implemented, although there are already rules that support them. This indicates that the death
penalty could not be carelessly done on corruption.
Second, the existence of Human Rights is certainly not to be dismissed. It is also relevant to
the topic that we argue about this time. The death penalty means eliminating a human life, and
automatically eliminate the right to life as a basic right of Human Rights. So also, the right to
life is referred to as the supreme human rights, which means that if we don't fulfill the rights of
life, then the rights of others is also not met. How twisted that if you remove human rights that
number is pretty much it. Human rights that are already listed in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (or commonly called the UDHR, under the authority of the United Nations). Of
course it should also be agreed upon by all member countries of the UN. The same thing is also
presented in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is one of the
multilateral agreements under the General Assembly of the United Nations and the United
Nations Human Rights (or UNHR). This deal has also been signed by Indonesia, with the
enactment of Law number 39 year 1999 on Human Rights.
Interestingly here is, that on the death penalty has also been stipulated in the Basic Law of the
Republic of Indonesia. In article 28A, every citizen has the right to live, survive and live his
life. Then also discussed in the article 28G of paragraph 2, more or less the content that is every
citizen has the right to be free from torture and degrading treatment degrees and human dignity.
Finally, in my conclusion, the death penalty is indeed not to be implemented. We've seen a
variety of examples and, in fact, that the rules are just not strong enough to regulate the
implementation of the death penalty for the corruptors. In the end, we oppose the opinion that
the corruptors should be punished by death. Thank you.

Speaker 2 of Government Team: Briana

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Today, we are debating the resolution of “Proven Corruptors,
Immediately Sentenced to Death”. On this occasion, I will convey the points of our group and
some rebuttals delivered by the opposition team.
The death penalty for corruptors arises because sanctions in the law related to corruption have
not been able to reduce the crime of corruption. Until now, conventional methods have proven
not to be able to eradicate the crime of corruption, even the tendency is increasing both from
the amount of wealth and the mode of operation. Sanctions applied against perpetrators of
corruption crimes are currently unable to provide a deterrent effect for the perpetrators.

As quoted from Artidjo Alkostar's statement in his interview with Najwa Shihab, corruption is
an extraordinary criminal offense for stealing state property and impoverishing the people. The
establishment of non-criminal corruption as an extraordinary crime in criminal law policy in
Indonesia means that in efforts to combat corruption, a special criminal law is needed that
deviates from the general rules of criminal law stipulated in the Criminal Law Code (KUHP)
and its event law stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Law (KUHAP).
When studied contextually using extensive and teleological interpretation, the death penalty
does not conflict with human rights because the consequences of corruption are far greater than
the crimes of genocide, terrorism, narcotics, and other human crimes. According to Gories, the
death penalty does not conflict with the 1945 Constitution or other international law because
the death penalty has a number of purposes, including maintaining consistency and non-
discrimination, preventing vigilante, preventing victimization, and preventing the onset of
other crimes.
When it comes to human rights, the perpetrators of terrorism, genocide, and drug traffickers
also have the same right to life as the corrupt. However, why are they still sentenced to death
when corruptors are only sentenced to prison and money? In fact, their cases are equally
detrimental to the people. Just like life imprisonment or with a certain period of time, the death
penalty for corruptors can be accompanied by a full reimbursement of state losses, one way is
to impoverish his family.
In addition, there are some cases where the corruptors who have been free plunge back into the
world of politics and re-commit acts of corruption which is certainly in a different mode than
before. This is certainly very detrimental to the people because of the rights of the people who
are deprived by force and inhumanely.
In the end, corruption crimes that are already considered serious crimes require
countermeasures from juridical aspects and extraordinary legal tools that are expected to
eradicate corruption cases. Thank you.

Speaker 2 of Opposition Team: Essra

First, I would like to know that I think that the death penalty for corruptors does not return
state assets. It would be better to focus on returning the corrupted state assets, which is more
important than the application of the death penalty to corruptors. Precisely because of being
sentenced to death, information related to the assets that were corrupted and various details
about the criminal acts committed were sealed. Assets that are corrupted are not necessarily
saved, such as assets resulting from criminal acts of corruption abroad through money
laundering mechanisms, making them difficult to trace, freeze, and confiscate.

In my opinion, it is better to emphasize an effective corruption eradication strategy than to

prioritize the death penalty. More effective steps such as massive and systemic governance
reforms from the root of the problem can be a strategy to eradicate corruption. Since the
beginning of the death penalty, whether for corruption or other criminal acts, there has been no
empirical evidence that can prove that the death penalty is effective in providing a deterrent
effect and reducing crime rates.

In addition, I have a different opinion that the death penalty for corruptors is not the right
solution for eradicating corruption because, apart from that, it is not effective enough to deal
with corruption and it is also against human rights norms. As my teammate said earlier,, human
rights cannot be ignored. From the beginning, Komnas HAM was not interested in the death
penalty, because for Komnas HAM, the right to life is a study of the United Nations. There is
no correlation between criminal acts and the death penalty. Although in the Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 6 paragraph 2 still justifies the death penalty, it is only
applied to the most serious criminal acts (the most serious crimes), namely gross human rights
violations (gross human rights violations), namely genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes
against humanity, and aggression, and does not include corruption.

All in all, there is no correlation between the application of the death penalty and the reduction
in corruption. In addition, imposing the death penalty on corruptors is said to be ineffective

Speaker 3 of Government Team: Binsar

As previously explained, the problem of corruption has become a disease as well as a bad
culture for our nation. Although there have been sanctions given to corruptors, corruption cases
still exist in this country. Corruption cases result in state losses and the country's development
process is hampered because the budget is misused for personal and group interests. In addition,
corruptors are also very miserable for the people because they have taken the people's rights
by force, many poor people are starving and die every day because the money that should be
for the people is actually being misused so that the people do not get security deposits from the
state. Therefore, the actions of corruptors certainly violate the human rights of many parties,
so they deserve the death penalty.
Why should corruptors be sentenced to death, why not with other severe punishments? Because
the existing sanctions in the law related to corruption have not been able to reduce acts of
corruption and have not been able to create a deterrent effect for corruptors. In addition, until
now there has been no effective strategy to eradicate corruption, the evidence is that there are
still many cases of corruption, even carried out by state officials who should put the people
first. Therefore, if the death penalty for convicts of corruption is enforced, this can certainly
minimize someone from committing corruption. Because he will think again when he will
commit acts of corruption.
We can learn from China in applying the death penalty for corruptors. Because in carrying out
the eradication of corruption, the Chinese government has realized by participating in ratifying
the United Nations Convention against corruption which includes bribery to public officials as
a crime. And in China's code of law, stipulates those who commit corruption to get the death
penalty as the harshest punishment. With the implementation of the death penalty against
corruptors in China, it is considered effective in reducing corruption. Indonesia has actually
regulated the death penalty for corruptors with certain conditions, but until now there has been
no death penalty for corruptors. Although the death penalty does not necessarily return state
assets. However, if the number of corruptors continues to increase due to light penalties, more
state assets will be lost due to corruption and will not necessarily return.
Does corruption violate human rights? Yes, corruption has clearly violated the rights of many
people. Money that should be used for the benefit of the community such as social assistance,
health insurance, and so on is actually misused for their selfishness. They seem to have no
sense of humanity because they have robbed the people of their rights. If asked why the death
penalty? Because "it is better to kill a soul that harms millions of people than to preserve it
without any concern for the good of the people." It is better to kill a corruptor directly than to
kill the people slowly.

If reviewed again, acts of corruption are extraordinary crimes. This view is based on the Law
on the Corruption Eradication Commission, especially the General Elucidation of Law 30 of
2002 which states that corruption is an extraordinary crime. It is said to be an extraordinary
crime because with the increase in uncontrolled corruption, it will bring disaster not only to the
life of the national economy but also to the life of the nation and state in general. Widespread
and systematic corruption is also a violation of social rights and economic rights of the
community, can have an impact on all development programs, the quality of education is low,
the quality of buildings is low, the quality of education falls, and poverty is not handled.

Speaker 3 of Opposition Team: Sabrina

The death penalty is really irrelevant if applied. Why? Because the death penalty is not the best
way to punish the corrupt. From what has been explained previously, the death penalty for
corruptors is a violation of the agreement in the declaration of human rights. It is also one of
the supreme human rights, meaning that if it is not fulfilled, other rights will also not be
fulfilled. The death penalty for corruptors also does not return state assets. It would be better
to focus on recovering the assets of the corrupted state. In addition, there are several countries
that have carried out the death penalty for corruptors, but the corruption index remains high.
Quoting from ICW's exposure, China's Corruption Index (CPI) score in 2020, as one of the
countries that is aggressively implementing the death penalty for corruption perpetrators, was
recorded at 42 out of a scale of 0-100, where a higher score is an indicator that respondents
give a good assessment, while a low value indicates that respondents perceive that corruption
is still high in their area, which means that corruption in China is still quite high. On the other
hand, the countries with the best corruption perception index (between 85 and 87) are Denmark,
New Zealand, Finland, Singapore, Sweden, and Switzerland. These countries have long
abolished the death penalty. Meanwhile, the countries with the worst corruption perception
index (between 10 and 14), namely North Korea, Yemen, South Sudan, Syria, and Somalia,
are the countries that apply the death penalty.
During this pandemic, the corruption rate in China doubled from the previous year. According
to the annual report from the Attorney General's Office submitted to the national parliament,
there were 18,585 people prosecuted for corruption-related crimes in 2019. Year on year, there
was a 90 percent increase.There were 16 cases involving former provincial or ministerial level
Communist Party cadres. Like former Yunnan party leader Qin Guangrong, he was accused of
taking bribes.
Instead of using the death penalty for corruptors, there is an effective solution that can be
applied by the government to handle this corruption case, namely by carrying out social
punishments such as confiscation of the corruptor's property and extending the sentence. This
punishment is the most effective and more effective solution than the death penalty because
pressure from the public can make officials resign. In fact, for matters that are considered very
trivial, the police can intervene to carry out investigations. Countries that have successfully
implemented this social punishment and succeeded in suppressing corruption cases are
Denmark and Zealand with a corruption perception index of 91 and Finland with a corruption
perception index of 89.
With the presentation of my argument, it is enough to confirm that our team does not approve
of the death penalty as a final step. My argument also corroborates the first and second opinions
of our team.
Speaker 4 of Government Team: Risja Manika
Well, I m from the affirmative team, will convey why our group deserves to win. In this country
we have many of clever people. But we're lack of honest people.
Now, Indonesia still needs a capital punishment to protect society who endanger the very
existence of a nation and the human soul.
The application of capital punishment is to eliminate major crimes so that justice would be felt
for many in many society,
From generations, regime, corruption has been difficult to eradicate, the commission on
corruption (kpk), still cannot escape corruption. From (prevention) strategies for corruption
(prevention), detective strategic (investigations) and penal policy strategies, capital punishment
is an option of several options in the elimination of corruption. The 1999 statute no. 31 in 1999
yo law no. 20 in 2001 on the elimination of corruption gave legality that corruption was
punishable by death under article 2 verse (2), where capital punishment can be imposed on
corrupt criminals.
As binsar has said, Indonesia should make a face in the Chinese law enforcement of the
corrupt, in China no mercy for corruption, even the vice chairman of the prime minister's
parliament in China was put to death. Indonesia's leaders are expected to be firm in its fight
against corruption without such measures that it can be suppressed, eliminated, and minimized

Speaker 4 of Opposition Team: Hafidh

Good afternoon ladies and gentlement
On this occasion, I would like to deliver our team's reply speech. Ladies and gentlemen, we
from the opposition team once again state that we do not agree with the motion "Proven
Corruptors, immediately sentenced to death". The reason is, we have a very comprehensive
and rational argument for the rejection of the motion as follows:
1. The death penalty does not support the right to human life and it is not stated in the UN
Charter that corruption is punishable by death. And if it is implemented it will violate
the agreement in the declaration of human rights. The execution of the death penalty
can only be carried out for serious crimes such as genocide, war crimes etc.
2. The death penalty for corruptors is a futile step in handling corruption cases, because it
is the same as not returning confiscated state assets and making information about the
corrupted assets closed so that it is difficult to trace.
3. There are several countries that sentence corruptors to death but the index of corruption
cases is still relatively high. From this it is clear that the death penalty is not effective
in eradicating corruption.
4. There are effective punishment solutions for corruptors that have succeeded in reducing
the level of corruption without punishing the death penalty and have been successful in
several countries. Social punishment is an effective solution for dealing with
corruption. This solution can be used as an option for other countries in handling
corruption cases.
From the four arguments, we can conclude that "The death penalty for convicted criminals
violates human rights and the death penalty is an ineffective solution to suppress corruption
cases". Therefore, we believe that the argument that our team has presented earlier is better
than the argument of the government team because we have strong reasons, examples, evidence
and solutions regarding the rejection of the motion.

thank you