DEATH PENALTY AS AN ANTI-CORRUPTION STRATEGY IN EXTRAORDINARY CRIMES: EVALUATING INDONESIA'S LEGAL FRAMEWORK DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Abstract

This study examines the regulation, legitimacy, and effectiveness of capital punishment as an anti-corruption strategy within Indonesia’s legal system, particularly in cases of corruption committed during national emergencies. The research is motivated by the increasing vulnerability of public finance governance during crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which has intensified debates regarding the proportionality and relevance of extreme criminal sanctions. Using a normative juridical method combined with a conceptual and comparative approach, the study analyzes statutory provisions, constitutional interpretations, criminal policy theory, and international human rights discourse. The findings demonstrate that capital punishment is formally regulated under Indonesia’s Anti-Corruption Law as a conditional and exceptional sanction applicable in aggravated circumstances. Its legitimacy is constitutionally recognized; however, its practical implementation remains absent, indicating a divergence between normative design (das sollen) and enforcement reality (das sein). The study argues that while capital punishment serves a strong expressive and symbolic function in classifying corruption as an extraordinary crime, its deterrent effectiveness is questionable without strengthened institutional integrity, enforcement certainty, and transparency mechanisms. Furthermore, the extension of capital punishment to non-lethal economic crimes raises proportionality concerns within evolving global human rights standards. This research concludes that capital punishment in corruption cases occupies a legally legitimate yet practically restrained position in Indonesia’s criminal policy framework, necessitating a balanced approach between penal severity and structural reform in emergency governance.