ANALYSIS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN PREMEDITATED MURDER CASES IN INDONESIA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

Abstract

The implementation of capital punishment in premeditated murder cases in Indonesia remains a subject of legal, ethical, and social debate. Despite being upheld by the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP), concerns persist regarding its effectiveness, human rights implications, and alignment with global legal standards. This study aims to analyze the application of the death penalty in Indonesia by comparing it with selected countries—namely the United States, Singapore, and Japan—to identify best practices and potential reforms. Using a qualitative research method, this study examines legal frameworks, judicial discretion, deterrence effectiveness, human rights concerns, and public perception through literature review and comparative analysis. Data were collected from academic journals, official reports, and legal documents published within the last five years. The findings indicate that Indonesia’s capital punishment system is characterized by legal inconsistencies, limited empirical evidence of deterrence, and growing international criticism for potential human rights violations. In contrast, the United States has implemented procedural safeguards to minimize wrongful convictions, Singapore enforces a strict mandatory death penalty policy, and Japan applies extensive appeal processes. The study reveals that Indonesia’s recent legal reforms, including a 10-year probationary period before execution, demonstrate a shift towards rehabilitation but remain insufficient to address broader systemic concerns. In conclusion, while capital punishment continues to receive mixed public support in Indonesia, the study recommends policy reforms focusing on standardized sentencing guidelines, alternative sentencing options, and compliance with international human rights obligations to ensure a fair and transparent judicial process.