Category: Opini

Indonesian Odyssey: A Drug User’s Quest for Treatment

This piece was written by Ricky Gunawan and was published in Asia Catalyst on 12 February 2010.

The story of Rose – the first drug user sentenced by Indonesian courts to rehabilitation instead of prison – continued this month, with some dramatic twists and turns that highlight obstacles to implementing Indonesia’s newly improved policy.

Rose was transferred from Pondok Bambu Detention Center to Cibubur Drug Dependence Hospital (RSKO Cibubur), on Monday, February 8, 2010. As I wrote in December, it took months after her July sentence for the corrupt detention system to actually move her to the hospital. During that time, Rose suffered from withdrawal symptoms without any medication. But even once the transfer was finally completed, it seemed the drama had only begun.

Rose was transferred to RSKO Cibubur using a hospital vehicle, and accompanied by staff of our organization, LBH Masyarakat. Once she arrived, hospital staff examined Rose regarding her addiction history, and gave her some medicine. They then charged a fee of around US$42.

In response to the medical fee, we argued that Rose was transferred to the hospital as ordered by the court, and also that she comes from poor family. Therefore, she should be released from any fees.

The administration officer at the RSKO Cibubur informed us that in order to get free drug treatment there, a civil health insurance card (jamkesmas – insurance for poor people) would be required. Otherwise, Rose would be liable for the fees of about US$270/month for six months – an astronomical sum for an impoverished Indonesian family.

Actually, we suspected this might happen. Rose’s mother had already begun the process of applying for a jamkesmas card in Bandung, West Java, where Rose is a resident. However, Rose’s mother found herself trapped in Indonesia’s rotten bureaucracy, ping-pong-ed from one unit to another unit.

Eventually, she was informed by the first officer who assisted her at the regional health agency that jamkesmas has a quota system. In other words, the government can only cover a limited number of poor people. If a poor person wants to apply for jamkesmas, s/he has to wait until someone from that quota dies.

This information was conveyed to RSKO Cibubur, but the administrative officer still refused to treat Rose without a jamkesmas card. Knowing Rose’s condition in Jakarta, Rose’s mother became seriously distressed about the bureaucracy in Bandung.

We were asked to deposit a large amount of money and sign a guarantee letter saying that if by Wednesday, February 10, Rose’s jamkesmas card is not submitted, we agree to cover all the medical expenses. We did so, and then we asked Rose’s auntie in Jakarta to sign the guarantee. But, she would only guarantee the costs until Wednesday. If on Wednesday Rose’s jamkesmas is not ready, Rose’s family has to pay all the medical expenses. Of course, as an underprivileged family, this is impossible for them.

And if Rose’s family can’t afford to pay the expenses, and the hospital can’t receive her, what’s the point of sending Rose to a drug treatment hospital for rehabilitation?

The hospital’s standpoint — that they want to treat Rose but need some guarantee of payment — is understandable. Since it is the state’s responsibility to pay the expenses, the state should provide a jamkesmas card. But the jamkesmas system, in which an impoverished person can join only if another jamkesmas holder dies, is completely ridiculous.

Luckily, we learned that in December 2009 the Ministry of Health had introduced a new program called “Jamkesmas for Newly Impoverished Persons”. This new program is available for impoverished people who are in correctional facilities, detention centers, social shelters or who are victims of natural disasters. Fortunately, Rose qualifies for this program.

On Tuesday afternoon, Rose prepared all the documents needed and on the next day her application was approved. At first, the administration officer at the hospital refused her application, because the program is so new that detention facilities don’t even know about it yet. Finally, Rose was accepted for treatment at the hospital.

Rose’s dreadful experience once again reflects the fragility of Indonesia’s legal system when it addresses drug users and the issue of addiction. Indonesia’s Narcotics Law clearly states that the state will pay the treatment costs for drug addicts who are found guilty of committing drug offenses, as this is considered part of the punishment period. But as the first person to be so sentenced, Rose had to work hard to convince the hospital that she is impoverished, and that her rehabilitation is a court’s order.

Rose’s case shows that Indonesia does not yet have a system in place ready to serve convicted drug users who need rehabilitation. Had the whole system been set up, it would be obvious that Rose had to go to rehab first, treat her addiction and then serve her prison sentence. It would also be clear who is responsible for transferring Rose from detention center to the hospital, and what procedures to follow when arranging for treatment costs. Instead, Rose and her supporters have had to advocate to create such a system at every step of the way.

One thing is for sure: Indonesia needs to develop a good system that can address the above issues very quickly. If a drug user needs to be imprisoned, it is far better for her or him to go to rehab first to treat the addiction, instead of prolonging her or his suffering and creating new health crises for prisons.

Addicted to Corruption in Indonesia

This piece was written by Ricky Gunawan and was published in Asia Catalyst on 3 December 2009.

Rose (not her real name) has been using drugs for more than ten years. During that time, she had been arrested a number of times, and her life has been harrowing. Not long ago, she began to feel hope for the first time, when in a breakthrough decision, Indonesia’s judges decided to send her to a rehabilitation center to treat her addiction.

However, Indonesia’s rotten and corrupt judicial system dashed her hopes.

Rose was arrested by the police on January 23, 2009 and after a lengthy legal process, received a court decision on July 27. Normally, Indonesia’s courts sentence drug users to prison. In this case, the court ordered her to be imprisoned for one year and eight months, but to begin with a period of rehabilitation for six months. This meant that once she got out from rehab she would only need to stay in prison for one year and two months. Since she had already served six months in detention waiting for her court hearing, that would be deducted from the total sentence, and Rose would only need to serve eight months in prison after her time in rehab.

The court’s decision to sentence Rose to rehab was a breakthrough and a first for Indonesia. It signaled that courts are finally beginning to consider drug users as victims from a health perspective, and to understand that putting them in prison will not treat their addiction. In fact, Indonesia’s poor correctional facilities will only deteriorate their health.

However, as of this writing – more than three months after the court decision – Rose is still waiting in a detention center.

What went wrong? After the court delivered its decision, the prosecutor’s office should have executed the judgment; in this case, they should have transferred Rose from Pondok Bambu Detention Center to Drug Dependence Hospital in Cibubur, Jakarta, for six months, and then sent her on to the correctional facility for eight months.

But the prosecutor, detention center and hospital officials had no idea of how to transfer such a person. Rose is the first person detained in the Pondok Bambu Detention Center to be sentenced to rehab. The prosecutor claimed that they have no standard operational procedure for transferring a person from a detention center to a rehab center.

Poor administration and bad bureaucracy have led Rose’s sentence-execution letter to ping-pong from one unit to another within the prosecutor’s office, with many typos added along the way, thus necessitating repeated rewriting of the letters. Disgracefully and predictably, the prosecutor has tried to extort Rose for fees in order to “expedite the process”.

It seems that the prosecutor doesn’t understand the concept of drug dependence. A drug user who is suffering from serious addiction, and who is detained for more than three months without proper medication, is of course having a very hard time. Ignoring Rose’s dire need to get drug dependence treatment simply amounted to ill-treatment. Rose is suffering terribly in detention.

It is deeply disappointing to see that after more than ten years of efforts at institutional reform, the prosecutor’s office has failed to eradicate the cancer eating away at its heart: that is, corruption. If in this petty case, a prosecutor is unable to handle the execution of a straightforward sentence to rehab, then it is no wonder that in cases involving corruption of high-rank government officials, members of parliament, or even in the case of Munir – Indonesia’s assassinated human rights defender – the prosecutor is utterly impotent.

The key to successful institutional reform lies in the ability of institutions to recognize their own weaknesses. They need to be able to acknowledge that there are internal problems that need to be fixed, and be open to constructive criticism as well as expert assistance from outside. Without this ability to diagnose and fix its own weaknesses, the institution itself will be left behind and excluded by other enhanced and modern institutions that are transparent, accountable, and that have zero tolerance of corruption.

Indonesia’s prosecutors should learn a lesson from Rose’s heartrending story. It should be a basis for the prosecutor in developing procedures to handle similar cases in the future, so that no one again will undergo what Rose has — and still is — suffering.

War on Drugs in RI: Demonizing The Most Vulnerable

This piece was written by Martin Lundqvist and Ricky Gunawan and was published in The Jakarta Post on 12 December 2008.

When arriving at the international terminal of Soekarno-Hatta Airport, Jakarta, the first tangible impression is the huge neon sign reading \”Welcome to Indonesia — Death Penalty for Drug Traffickers!\” This sign is indicative of the Indonesian government\’s policy on drugs, which has resulted in the adoption of a \”war on drugs\” law, as well as in stigmatizing and discriminating against the domestic drug user community.

According to Law No. 22/1997 on Narcotics anyone handling narcotics is a criminal. This means that the drug dealer, the drug trafficker and the drug user are liable for criminal prosecution. There is no doubt that the drug trafficker should be prosecuted and punished, but the drug user? The government claims to have adopted a \”war on drugs\” — a war which has resulted in criminalizing and stigmatizing some of the most vulnerable people in society — the drug addicts.

This law has been accompanied by several government-initiated advertising campaigns, the basic tenet of which is to portray the drug addict as the antithesis of \”goodness\”. S/he is portrayed as a sinful person who will end up in hell, contrasting with the \”good citizen\” who will go to heaven in the afterlife. The drug user is additionally depicted as inhuman and is virtually demonized in these campaigns.

As a natural consequence of this law and the advertisement campaigns, discrimination against drug users is a common feature in Indonesian public life — most notably seen in the relationship between the police and the drug user. It seems many police have a quota of arrests to meet every month — arrests which are disproportionately aimed at drug users.

Additionally, they are often arrested and then asked for money in order to be released. Given that the average salary for the police is only around Rp 3 million (US$241.35) per month, this is an easy way to increase their income. In their interactions with drug users the police often use torture, threats and illegal detention as a means to gain confessions of alleged crimes or for payment of bribes.

Torture practices are especially experienced by female drug users. They are frequently subjected to sexual harassment from the police. It is common knowledge amongst the women that in order for them to be released they must provide sexual services to the police. In their daily language this is referred to as: tukar body (exchange body). In practice then, their options are restricted to paying money, providing sex services, or staying detained.

The drug user is an ideal victim for abuse of power, since very few of them are likely to file complaints about police misconduct. This is partially so because many of them have internalized the values of the \”war on drugs\” campaigns, and feel they somehow deserve to be tortured.

They also have a widespread fear of the police — a fear which is highly rational given the normal (violent) pattern of interactions between the police and the drug user. Therefore, the police enjoy almost full impunity when it comes to violating the human rights of drug users.

Sadly, very few legal aid and human rights organizations advocate against torture when the victim is a drug user. They are worried that this might negatively affect their \”good image\” as human rights defenders. This is regrettable, but also quite understandable, when considering the perception most Indonesians have of drug users, which is condemning, to say the least. However, defending human rights should be about defending every human being\’s rights — regardless of their sex, race, gender, religion or social status.

As mentioned, large sectors of the Indonesian public hold strongly disapproving attitudes toward the drug user, attitudes which (to a large extent) derive from the government\’s demonizing campaigns. Drug users are considered to be sinful and should therefore be excluded from the environment of the \”good citizens\” — including education and health institutions. The consequence of this is that many schools have a strict admissions policy where prospective students have to pass a urine test in order to prove that they are \”clean\”.

When it comes to healthcare, drug users are often treated in a demeaning manner by doctors and health care personnel. For example, they are frequently asked questions such as: \”why do you want to get sick? You know drugs make you sick, still you use it\”. The drug user has to endure moral condemnation which should have no place in a professional medical institution.

Finally, it is important to note that drug addiction is indeed a major societal problem which needs to be combated. However, this need not include criminalizing and stigmatizing a large group of citizens. Many international examples show that it is possible to be \”hard on drugs\” while also respecting the needs and human rights of its citizens.

Heavy drug addiction is a health hazard, and the addict should be given proper medical care to help combat his addiction, rather than to be prosecuted and put in jail. Pursuant to Indonesian Law No. 11/2005, the government must recognize the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and thus must maximize available resources to achieve full realization of this right.

This law is derived from the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which Indonesia has signed and ratified. Indonesian Law No. 22/1997 unfortunately proves that the government is more concerned with its \”war on drugs\” than with the health and human rights of some of its most exposed citizens.

Laws Against Torture Needed

This piece was written by Ricky Gunawan and was published in The Jakarta Post on 22 November 2008.

On Jan. 22, 2007, Hartoyo was at home with his partner, Bobby (not his real name), when two men forcibly entered his house and proceeded to vandalize his property before assaulting the two men. Hartoyo and Bobby were then dragged outside to a place where a crowd of around 15 people had gathered. They were subjected to beatings and verbal abuse. Hartoyo was ordered by the attackers to immediately vacate the boarding house. The attackers then informed the local police authorities.

The two victims were taken by four police officers to the Banda Raya Police Station where they were made to strip down to their underwear and were viciously beaten and verbally abused by the officers. The police officers later sexually abused Hartoyo and then forced his partner to perform oral sex on him. The two were then dragged to the police station courtyard where officers sprayed them with ice-cold water.

The police also forced Bobby to urinate on Hartoyo\’s head. Hartoyo and his partner were then taken to a police lockup, where they were held until morning.

This ruthless, inhuman and barbaric torture has been a cavernous trauma for Hartoyo. Furthermore, this abysmal event scars Indonesia\’s face of humanity.

More than a year later, in October 2008, the case was finally tried by the Banda Aceh District Court. However, as the court regarded the torture merely as a minor offense, there was only one judge hearing the case.

During the trial, the judge did not examine the acts of torture but rather focused on Hartoyo\’s sexual orientation. The judge advised him to turn away from sin, giving the impression that it was permissible for the perpetrators to beat and assault the victims because of their different sexual orientation.

In about 30 minutes, the judge had made his decision: The four perpetrators were sentenced to three months\’ imprisonment with six months of probation and a fine of Rp 1,000.

Given that the case was tried as a minor offense, the verdict was final and binding — leaving no hope for the victim to appeal.

Hartoyo\’s case is only one example of how the Indonesian legal apparatus treats this kind of torture. The court obviously treats the \”common enemies of all mankind and all nations\” nicely and inadequately by ruling they only committed a minor offense.

From this case, we can also draw the conclusion that torture creates double standards within the state institutions, especially the police and judiciary. How is it possible that such severe violence took place in this very modern day and the perpetrators received a very light punishment?

This case demonstrates how the absence of laws on torture resulted in no justice for the victims of torture. The absence of laws on torture denies victims and their families any avenue for justice and redress. The right to redress and compensation for grievances wreaked by the State is a fundamental principle of the Convention against Torture, to which Indonesia is a party. Indonesia, which does not provide a legal remedy for such unspeakable acts, is also violating its international obligation imposed under the Convention.

Reports from many national and international human rights groups show there have never been investigations into cases of torture and other ill-treatment, and where victims have been reluctant to submit a complaint to the relevant authorities. Even if the perpetrators were convicted, they were not convicted under the laws on torture. Definitely, there is a problem in dealing with torture in Indonesia.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has recommended that for a country such as Indonesia, there is a crucial need for an independent national authority, such as a national commission or ombudsman with investigatory and/or prosecutorial powers, which should be immediately established to receive and to investigate complaints on torture cases.

Complaints about torture should be dealt with without further delay and should also be investigated by an independent authority with no connection to that which is investigating or prosecuting the case against the alleged victim. Wherever a person has a plausible complaint of having been tortured by the police or military officers, it too entails the notion of an effective remedy.

Without establishing a proper, impartial and effective accountability mechanism to investigate torture cases as well as enacting domestic laws on torture, there will be more cases like Hartoyo\’s in the near future. Indonesia\’s tortured commitment, apparently, is dragging the country into a tortured nation.

No Anti-Torture Laws 10 Years On

This piece was written by Ricky Gunawan and was published in The Jakarta Post on 10 October 2008.

On Sept. 28, 1998, Indonesia ratified Convention against Torture. It was expected that this ratification would be a milestone in the struggle against torture. It was meant to impede rampant and continuous torture practices committed by Indonesian police officers and military forces at the time.

Despite the ratification, however, there is no corresponding domestic law criminalizing torture.

For some, torture is the same as maltreatment. According to international human rights law, however, torture is categorized as the highest of crimes. The jus cogens nature of torture justifies states taking universal jurisdiction over torture wherever committed.

International human rights law provides that offenses jus cogens may be punished by any state because the offenders are \”common enemies of all mankind and all nations have an equal interest in their apprehension and prosecution\”. Those who commit torture are classed as acting against humanity (hostis humanis generis). Meanwhile, maltreatment is simply an ordinary crime.

Torture has an enormous impact on the lives of victims, victims\’ families, perpetrators and their families, those aware of such practices in civil society, and enforcement agencies. Torture is not just about breaking the victims, both physically and mentally.

It will haunt the victims for the rest of their lives. Torture is always deliberate and the victims are always unwary. The inflicted pain is acute and chronic. Central to the practice of torture is the intention of cruelty and destruction.

Torture is acknowledged as an ultimate denial of the inherent dignity of every individual. It focuses the power of the state apparatus against a single, defenseless individual, who is often locked in a small, murky room. Torture aims to isolate, hurt and humiliate the victim by using one of the most basic human nature, the aversion of pain or suffering, to overpower dignity. Moreover, it aims to strip the individual of the very qualities on which human rights are based.

The consequences of torture are multidimensional and interrelated. No part of the victim\’s life is untouched. Although the effects of the physical pain suffered diminish after months or years, lasting physical impairments resulting from torture, such as amputation, hearing loss, blindness, muscle impairment, inability to bear children, sexual dysfunction, scars and poorly healed fractures, are permanent mementos of the trauma endured.

In addition to the physical wounds, torture victims suffer from psychological symptoms such as feelings of anxiety, guilt, shame and powerlessness in relation to the problems of everyday life. They can also suffer from poor sleep and recurrent nightmares.

Torture stigmatizes and ostracizes the victims. The families, spouses and children of the victims also bear the brunt, left to lead secluded and demoralized lives.

The aftermath of torture does not solely affect the victims and their families. It affects the perpetrators as well. Torturers and their families also suffer from comparable psychological effects, though they enshroud them using a facade of pride and superiority.

The torturer will be living a normal life even though they have just committed a serious crime. In fact, in terms of family relationships, torturers are living a double life: They are nice fathers at home, while also cruel, ruthless and cold-blooded people.

Despite the unspeakable aftermath of the crime as well as a plethora of reports and declarations issued by the international community, torture persists in more than half of the countries in the world, including Indonesia. Torture remains a problem of great magnitude in the world.

Societies allowing the practice of torture to take place are more likely to develop a culture of violence, generating further atrocities. Deterring such actions and establishing measurable systems to effectively prevent torture may come only from respect of human dignity and social sanity, without which, torture remains an abhorrent violation of human rights and human dignity.

The question left is, will the Indonesian government put its overly repeated commitments to pass proper laws on torture into reality or not? Ten years is, of course, more than enough for the Indonesian government to thoroughly understand the gravity of torture. Recognition of the grave nature, however, devoid of a single law to criminalize it will never bring such evil practices to an end.

Death Sentence, Is It Our Right?

This piece was written by Ricky Gunawan and Answer C. Styaness and was published in The Jakarta Post on 5 September 2008.

Setting out the pros and cons about the death penalty always creates hot debate. Many countries including Indonesia, as well as several U.S. states, still have capital punishment, while the practice has been abolished in Europe and Australia.

Opponents of capital punishment argue there are many who still do not realize or recognize the death penalty violates the right to life as an inherent right of all human beings.

The death penalty is a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It is nothing more than legalized murder done by the state in the name of justice. If we think murder is extremely cruel — so much so the perpetrators must receive a death sentence — then how can we say preparing an execution team of twenty shooters to take someone\’s life is not inhuman?

One of the favorite arguments put forth by retentionists — those who support the death penalty — to justify capital punishment is it is one of the most effective deterrents for would-be criminals. They argue the death penalty is needed to prevent other members of society from committing crimes.

Statistics from many countries, however, demonstrate the death penalty has little effect on decreasing crime. It is not the severity of the punishment which will deter crime and convey justice for the victim but the certainty perpetrators are convicted after a just, transparent trial, a legal process which determines guilt based on evidence.

\”But the death penalty meets society\’s need for justice.\” Retentionists often use this argument as well. Anyone who has committed a serious crime deserves to die. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. Is that the kind of justice we stand for here?

If so, then why not torture a torturer? At this point, we strongly condemn the practice of torture or, at least, prohibition of torture is clearly codified in the UN Convention against Torture. Letting that argument play out, why doesn\’t our legal system allow the state to rape a rapist?

It is simply because, deep down inside our conscience, we all know justice is not about taking that which the perpetrator has taken from us. For a long time, we have been sickened by cruel crimes and have asked the government to impede such cruelty by applying the death penalty. Yet we never put two and two together to see capital punishment does nothing more than continue the chain of atrocity.

Retentionists often link the notion of death penalty with a victim\’s need for justice. But who are they to talk about what any victim considers justice to be?

Victims often forgive perpetrators and even unequivocally declare they do not want the perpetrators to be executed. If we really want to punish perpetrators for the victims\’ sake, it is akin to punishing people based on emotional considerations. If punishments are linked to victims\’ feelings, then sanctions become subjective and risk becoming arbitrary.

Let\’s not forget the criminal justice system is vulnerable to error, an essential consideration in this debate. Fallibility is something we, as human beings, cannot avoid since it is in our nature. We cannot prevent all false convictions even with the system of judicial appeal.

Even an impartial and transparent legal process cannot always prevent this sort of human error. It is thus imprudent to allow this vulnerable system to decide if someone \”deserves\” to die or not.

As has already been proved in many cases, a court may execute someone who is falsely convicted. There are cases in which the executed were found innocent after the real perpetrators confessed and, unfortunately, after the executed had already lost their life. When this happens, consider who is responsible. If we are speaking of justice, what kind of justice can the victim, the executed one, and his or her family experience? We cannot bring the wrongly convicted back to life. Are retentionists willing to be responsible?

One final argument which Indonesian retentionists use to defend their position on the death penalty is a decision by Indonesia\’s Constitutional Court. In that decision, the right to life guaranteed in Article 28I, paragraph 1, of the Constitution is also subject to \”limitation\” as mentioned in the subsequent Article 28J, paragraph 2. The Constitutional Court confirmed the death penalty is not a violation of the right to life, only a limitation of that right.

That decision hinges on how we interpret what rights can be impaired, and which cannot. Is it true the right to life, explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as a right which cannot be derogated, is also subject to \”limitation\” as the Constitutional Court ruled?

Life is grace. It is a grace which is given by God. If He is the one who gave us life, then He must be the one with the right to take it. Who are we, as humans, to think we have the right to arrange somebody\’s moment of death? Who are we to judge whether someone is evil enough and hence deserves to die?

Are we playing God?

Media Coverage of Our Works

We present you some international media coverage about the works of LBH Masyarakat (Community Legal Aid Institute):

1. The Jakarta Post, 10 February 2010, \”Female drug users suffer double discrimination\”
2. The Christian Science Monitor, 18 February 2010, \”Prison for wealthy Indonesians puts Club Fed to shame\” 
3. Asia Catalyst, 23 February 2009, \”Street Lawyering in Jakarta\”
4. The Jakarta Post, 13 April 2009, \”Legal aid group urges residents to report voting violations\”
5. Inside Indonesia, April-June 2009, \”Winning a battle, losing the war\”
6. International Bridges to Justice, 21 July 2010, \”Using innovative models and youthful enthusiasm to spread legal empowerment in Jakarta\”
7. Al Jazeera America, 2 February 2015, \”Rights groups criticize resumption of executions in Indonesia\”
8. Al Jazeera, 27 April 2015, \”Families ask Indonesia for clemency for drug prisoners\”
9. The Guardian, 23 April 2015, \”Bali Nine: embassies summoned in sign executions could be imminent\”
10. The New York Times, 29 April 2015, \”Portraits of an Execution in Indonesia\”
11. The Washington Post, 30 April 2015, \”Before facing firing squad, mentally ill inmate asks: ‘Am I being executed?’\”
12. BBC, 1 May 2015, \”Indonesia executions: Brazilian unaware he was going to die\”
13. The Straits Times, 9 May 2015, \”Indonesia President Jokowi insists death penalty \’positive\’ for country\”
14. Al Jazeera America, 20 May 2015, \”Japanese grandfather gets life term in Indonesia drug case\”
15. Al Jazeera America, 7 October 2015, \”Executions for drug crimes: A stubborn ‘fringe’ trend\”
16. The Coconuts Jakarta, 20 January 2016, \”Coalition of human right groups ask Indonesian government to end unjust use of the death penalty\”
17. Anti Death Penalty Asia Network, 20 January 2016, \”HR Groups to stop executions and abolish Death Penalty\”

Feel free to give us a shout in the comment section if you find another media coverage about us. You can also see the local media coverage about our works here.

Rodrigo Gularte: Sebuah Mimpi di Ujung Laras Panjang

Saat pemerintah tengah gencar menyatakan perang terhadap narkotika, mengambil langkah untuk tetap mengeksekusi terpidana mati di tengah riuh protes kepala-kepala negara yang warga negaranya menjadi terpidana mati, BNN dan Polri kembali berhasil membongkar peredaran gelap narkotika yang dikontrol dari dalam penjara oleh seorang TERPIDANA MATI. Hal tersebut tentu amat mencengangkan. Bagaimana mungkin seseorang yang hanya menunggu kematian dan terkurung di balik tebalnya dinding penjara masih dapat mengendalikan peredaran gelap narkotika? Terkuaknya hal itu membuat banyak orang mengutuk si terpidana mati tersebut: betapa ia tak layak diberi pengampunan. Namun banyak dari kita lupa untuk juga melakukan kritisi terhadap pemerintah yang gagal mencegah terjadinya peristiwa ini. Ironis. Di tempat yang semestinya kejahatan dinihilkan, negara tak mampu mengendalikan tindakan seseorang yang penuh di bawah pengawasannya. Logika kita pun diusik. Mengapa kematian tak membuatnya takut untuk tidak melakukan tindak pidana? Apakah hukuman mati sia-sia belaka?

Terlepas dari pro & kontra hukuman mati, hujatan publik untuk surat terbuka Anggun C Sasmi, dan pelaksanaan eksekusi gelombang ke-2 di era Jokowi-JK, ada sebuah cerita yang luput dari perhatian kita dan media. Sebuah kisah mengenai Rodrigo Gularte, seorang penderita skizofrenia berkebangsaan Brazil yang merupakan salah seorang dari 10 terpidana mati yang dijadwalkan akan segera dieksekusi. Ketika berusia 10 tahun, Rodrigo divonis menderita kelainan otak cerebral disrythimia oleh Prof. Eresto Chicon, dokter di bidang neurologi dari Universitas Negeri Bagian Parana, Brazil. Penyakit ini membuat Rodrigo kehilangan kontrol diri dan kapasitas untuk mengambil keputusan sehingga ia tidak memikirkan konsekuensi buruk yang mungkin ditimbulkan dari perbuatannya. Setelah 14 tahun Rodrigo menjalani perawatan medis dan psikiatrik, dokter kembali menemukan gangguan lain dalam diri Rodrigo. Rodrigo mengidap bipolar affective dissorder yang diturunkan secara genetis dari kakek dan ibu Rodrigo. Kakak laki-laki dan kakak perempuannya pun mengidap penyakit kejiwaan.

Rodrigo berbeda. Ia tumbuh dan besar dengan kondisi gangguan psikiatrik yang menjadikannya objek risak (bullying) yg sempurna bagi teman-temannya. Namun demikian, Rodrigo tumbuh menjadi orang yang baik. Ia bersih, tanpa catatan kriminal. Di sisi lain, Rodrigo, dengan segala kondisinya yang amat rentan, menjadi sasaran empuk mafia peredaran gelap narkotika internasional. Seperti yang ditemukan pada banyak kasus kurir penyelundupan narkotika, mafia –dengan segala tipu dayanya- berhasil memanipulasi Rodrigo. Mereka mengajak Rodrigo berlibur ke Indonesia bersama dua orang lainnya. Tanpa sepengetahuan Rodrigo, papan seluncur yang dibawanya masuk ke Indonesia telah diisi sebelumnya dengan narkotika. Rodrigo tertangkap dan entah mengapa dua temannya dilepaskan. Rodrigo pasang badan, tampil bak pahlawan.

Telah genap 10 tahun Rodrigo mendekam di penjara, menanti eksekusi. Dia mulai lancar berbahasa indonesia, meski terbata-terbata dan terkadang masih sulit menemukan kata yang tepat untuk digunakan. Dia bercerita pada tim pengacara bahwa hukuman mati akan segera dihapuskan. Dia merasa mendengar siaran di radio yang mengabarkan bahwa kerajaan akan segera menghapus hukuman mati. Menurutnya, eksekusi mati yang digadang-gadang akan dilaksanakan dalam waktu dekat hanyalah bohong belaka. Baginya, hal itu dilakukan “raja” untuk menakut-nakuti rakyat. Ia merasa kedamaian akan segera datang dan seluruh rakyat, yang digambarkannya bertubuh aneh dengan kepala sebesar kubah masjid, akan menyambut gembira kabar tersebut. Tim pengacara tak bisa berbuat apa-apa untuk meyakinkan Rodrigo bahwa itu hanyalah halusinasi saja. Bagaimana mungkin Indonesia adalah sebuah kerajaan? Bagaimana mungkin seorang manusia berkepala besar, berdada kecil, dengan perut besar dan kaki yang kecil? Lalu yang terpenting, bagaimana mungkin hukuman mati di Indonesia dihapuskan ketika negara kita mengesampingkan hak hidup sebagai hak asasi?

Ini bukan sebuah drama. Ini adalah fakta yang dikesampingkan oleh pengadilan: bahwa seorang penderita skizofrenia yang seharusnya tidak dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban pidana, justru kini harus menghadapi eksekusi mati. Kejaksaan Agung mengakui bahwa orang yang sakit jiwa tidak dapat dipidana apalagi dihukum mati. Oleh karena itu, Kejaksaan Agung mencari second opinion mengenai kondisi kesehatan jiwa Rodrigo. Sebuah second opinion yang teramat penting bagi nyawa seorang manusia, yang –entah mengapa- hingga hari ini tidak juga dirilis. Dalam kekhawatiran yang menyakitkan, keluarga Rodrigo menanti second opinion tersebut.

Lalu, dimana kita? Apakah kita akan berdiri membela Rodrigo Gularte, atau justru diam dan membiarkan peluru menembus dadanya? Padahal, di saat yang sama kita tahu benar bahwa sistem peradilan kita korup, dipenuhi mafia, administrasinya berantakan, dan sungguh masih jauh dari ideal. Kemudian di saat yang sama pula, Rodrigo Gularte, di sebuah pulau terasing, menanti kematiannya. Kematian yang ia percaya tak akan datang dengan senapan karena sang “raja” akan segera menghapuskan hukuman mati, agar rakyat: bergembira.

Infografis oleh: Astried Permata

Ditulis oleh Naila Rizki Zaqiah, staf penanganan kasus di LBH Masyarakat, dan sedikit dibantu oleh Albert Wirya, staf riset di lembaga yang sama. Anda dapat mengenal Albert lebih dalam dengan mengunjunginya di facebook maupun di blognya yang luar biasa: https://pelurukosong.wordpress.com. Tulisan ini diunggah di sini dengan persetujuan Naila (yang amat disayangkan tidak memiliki blog) & Albert serta sedikit dihias oleh Yohan Misero, sang pemilik akun, yang bisa dikunjungi di http://sembunyimu.blogspot.com/ atau diikuti di https://twitter.com/yohanmisero.

Tulisan ini pernah dimuat di Indonesiana pada 24 April 2015

Mencuri Perspektif Uruguay

Pada 2013, parlemen Uruguay meloloskan sebuah undang-undang yang mengubah kesan dunia terhadap negara itu selamanya. Uruguay menjadi negara pertama yang melegalkan ganja. Terlepas dari kritik dan kekhawatiran dari banyak negara lain, beberapa institusi non-profit, dan lembaga-lembaga Persatuan Bangsa-Bangsa, Uruguay terus menjalankan kebijakan ini. Menurut undang-undang ini, warga negara Uruguay dapat menanam ganja mereka sendiri dengan limitasi tertentu atau membeli ganja, lagi-lagi dengan limitasi tertentu, yang diproduksi dan dijual oleh negara.

Pemerintah Uruguay memandang bahwa kebijakan ini adalah sebuah cara untuk melawan peredaran gelap narkotika (digolongkannya ganja sebagai narkotika tentu bisa diperdebatkan, namun tidak dalam tulisan ini) yang dikendalikan mafia. Pemerintah Uruguay akan bertarung satu lawan satu melawan mafia peredaran gelap narkotika untuk merebut pasar pengguna ganja. Sebuah pertarungan yang pasti akan dimenangkan oleh pemerintah, semata-mata karena pemerintah memiliki sumber daya yang jauh lebih lengkap. Pemerintah memiliki hukum, aparat, pusat penelitian, dan yang paling penting: kontrol akan harga.

Untuk apa pertarungan semacam ini? Apa pendekatan konservatif yang mempertandingkan aparat penegak hukum dan pengedar gelap narkotika tak lagi cukup? Uruguay telah sampai pada kesimpulan bahwa peredaran gelap narkotika akan selalu ada sehingga daripada mencoba untuk memusnahkannya jauh lebih efektif untuk bersaing melawannya di pasar. Lagi pula, ganja yang diproduksi dan dijual oleh pemerintah dapat dikendalikan kadar substansinya sehingga akan lebih aman untuk dikonsumsi. Hal demikian tidak akan terjadi dengan cara yang dipercaya oleh dunia hari ini, yang secara tidak langsung menyerahkan pasar kepada mafia.

Sebagai negara yang berada di kawasan Amerika Selatan, tentu saja Uruguay memahami benar dampak dari usaha negara-negara tetangga mereka untuk, secara harafiah, memerangi mafia peredaran gelap narkotika. Pertempuran dengan senjata api tak dapat terhindarkan dan telah terlalu banyak memakan korban jiwa, bahkan mereka yang sama sekali tak terlibat. Darah yang tertumpah di negara-negara seperti Meksiko dan Kolombia sungguh merupakan contoh yang lebih dari cukup bagi dunia untuk tidak lagi melakukan cara-cara lama.

Upaya-upaya klasik yang selama ini dilakukan dengan judul besar “perang terhadap narkotika” ternyata tidak banyak merubah keadaan. Hal ini tidak lain karena motif keuntungan finansial yang dipegang teguh oleh para pengedar. Semakin keras usaha penegak hukum, semakin keras pula usaha organisasi mafia menghadapinya. Jika pemerintah, misalnya, dengan usaha tertentu dapat mengurangi masuknya persediaan narkotika tertentu ke dalam negeri, maka mafia-mafia ini akan dengan lihai mencampur persediaan narkotika ilegal yang mereka punya dengan zat lain yang murah dan berbahaya sebelum melepaskannya ke pasar. Negara gagal jadi pahlawan, bisnis organisasi kriminal terus jalan, dan masyarakat sipil tetap jadi korban.

Terlepas dari berbagai pernyataan Badan Narkotika Nasional pun Kepolisian Republik Indonesia yang menyatakan sebaliknya, terdapat banyak masalah dalam kebijakan narkotika di Indonesia. Pasal-pasal yang tidak tegas dan tumpang tindih membuat banyak pecandu dan pengguna narkotika di Indonesia tetap diproses pidana. Oknum aparat yang memeras pecandu dan pengguna tapi siap bermain mata dengan pengedar. Akhir-akhir ini pun telah jatuh korban baik dari pengedar gelap dan penegak hukum di Aceh dan Sukabumi. Tentu yang paling hingar bingar ialah penerapan hukuman mati yang sama sekali tidak menyelesaikan masalah. Pemerintah Indonesia meneriakan “Indonesia Darurat Narkotika!” sambil bersembunyi di balik data yang amat patut diragukan mengenai sekian kematian per hari akibat narkotika. Pemerintah lupa, atau tak mau melihat, bahwa yang mereka lawan adalah mafia besar yang memandang bahwa kehilangan beberapa pion dalam permainan bukanlah sebuah masalah besar.

Negara-negara di seluruh dunia dengan caranya masing-masing mencoba mengatasi peredaran gelap narkotika. Walau dalam tahap aplikasi kebijakan ini pemerintah Uruguay juga menghadapi masalah, penting dan patut bagi Indonesia untuk melihat dan belajar pengalaman dan kebijakan Uruguay dan juga negara-negara lain seperti Belanda, Portugal, Swiss, bahkan India. Satu yang jelas, Indonesia butuh perubahan kebijakan terhadap narkotika. Tentu saja, mencapai perubahan bukan perkara mudah. Jose Mujica, presiden Uruguay pada saat negara itu mengubah kebijakannya terhadap ganja, berkata, “Selalu ada opini konservatif dan reaktif yang takut akan perubahan. Yang menyedihkan adalah bahwa seseorang yang hampir berumur 80 tahun,” ia menunjuk dirinya sendiri, “yang harus maju ke depan dan menawarkan keterbukaan yang kekinian kepada sebuah dunia yang konservatif yang membuatmu ingin menangis.”

Ditulis oleh Yohan Misero
Tulisan ini pernah diunggah ke legalisasiganja.com