Mempertimbangkan Denda Damai untuk Koruptor

Menteri Hukum Supratman Andi Agtas’s statement regarding the possibility of granting “settlement fines” for individuals involved in corruption offenses has sparked widespread discussions across various sectors. The proposed concept, within the framework of the new Attorney General Law, defines settlement fines as the out-of-court resolution of cases, contingent upon the perpetrators paying an agreed-upon fine. While the implementation is pending detailed regulations, the idea has generated debates, particularly concerning justice, effectiveness, and the impact on law enforcement in Indonesia. Can settlement fines offer a pragmatic solution to tackle corruption, or do they exacerbate disparities within our legal system?

Key Points:

• Unending Issue of Corruption: Described as an extraordinary crime, corruption in Indonesia continues to undermine governance, weaken the economy, and diminish public service quality. Apart from financial losses to the state, it creates structural injustices felt by the general populace.

• Distinguishable Offense: The handling of corruption differs from regular criminal acts. Indonesian criminal law stresses that the primary purpose of punishing corrupt individuals is to deter future occurrences and restore public trust in the legal system. Even if the embezzled funds are returned, the perpetrators must still be held accountable.

• Risk of Wrong Impression: Without strict oversight, the adoption of settlement fines could erroneously convey the message that crimes are negotiable. This would contradict the aim of combating corruption decisively as an extraordinary crime necessitating uncompromising measures.

Balancing National Interests and Justice:

• Efficiency vs. Substantive Justice: While proponents argue for the mechanism’s efficiency in promptly recovering misappropriated funds and alleviating prison overcrowding, it inherently prioritizes economic considerations over substantive justice and the deterrent effect of criminal punishment.

• Potential Disparities: There’s a risk of creating a two-tiered legal system where common citizens face severe punishments for minor offenses, while the wealthy corrupt individuals buy their way out. Such inequality would reinforce the perception of a biased judiciary.

• Abuse of Power: Within a system still grappling with law enforcement integrity issues, the settlement fines could offer a new loophole for clandestine compromises between corrupt elements and authorities.

Lessons from Other Countries:

• United States: The Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) allows entities to admit wrongdoing, pay fines, and implement governance reforms to avoid trial. Supervised by independent judges, this approach balances accountability and the deterrent effect.

• United Kingdom: The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) settles cases with fines alongside requirements for internal reforms in large corporations, ensuring moral and institutional responsibilities are not waived. Transparency remains central.

• France: The Sapin II Law enables settlements with fines for corruption cases, combined with stringent regulations and oversight in both public and private sectors, emphasizing transparency and integrity.

Call for Balanced and Firm Punishments:

• Justice as Foundation: Upholding justice entails ensuring punishments align with the severity of the crime, serving as a deterrent and rebuilding public trust. While fines serve as a punitive tool, they alone cannot suffice; criminal sanctions are essential for moral accountability.

• Ensuring Law Enforcement Integrity: The focus should be on strengthening enforcement and judicial system reforms, free from political influence or economic pressure, to maintain uncompromised operations and bolster supervision for transparency.

In Summation: Combatting corruption demands resolute law enforcement actions and systematic reforms, rather than quick-fix pragmatic solutions like settlement fines. Upholding a legal system founded on justice, transparency, and accountability, as evident in lessons from other nations, is crucial to fostering public trust and eradicating corruption at its core.