Unit 1: AOS2b
Week Ending: 31st March
• trends in crime, sentencing and recidivism
• a comparison of one aspect of sentencing in Victoria with that of an international jurisdiction
• the impact of criminal acts on individuals and society
• alternative avenues for seeking compensation for victims of crime.
Key Knowledge 4: The criminal investigation process, including police powers and individual rights and responsibilities in dealing with police
Police Powers and Individuals Rights
Learning Intention:
Understanding of police powers and individual rights 1. What is the right to silence? 2. Are you required to give the police your name and address? 3. What are the rules around fingerprints? 4. What is police cautioning? Summarise the information around police cautioning of young people. 5. What is custody? Can police hold a person for an indefinite period of time? 6. Find an example of when police powers have been breached. Summarise the example in your books. Do you think that the police should have had the power to exercise the action as they did? |
Can a police officer search me?
In general, a police officer can search you if they have:
• a warrant
• arrested you.
If a police officer searches you, they must make a written record that they did the search. You can ask for a copy of the record at the time or later. This is free if you ask for the record within one year of the search.
When can a police officer search me without a warrant?
Searches by consent If the police officer does not have a warrant or the authority to search you, they might ask you if you will let them search you. This is called a ‘search by consent’. You can say no. If you say yes, the police officer should get your agreement in writing. You can complain if this does not happen.
Searches in a ‘public place’
The police officer does not need a warrant to search you in a public place if they reasonably suspect you:
• have illegal drugs
• have things that can explode or ignite
• have guns or weapons like knives, imitation guns, knuckle-dusters or nunchakus
• are in an area where a lot of violent crime happens (they can use this fact to show they have reasonable grounds to search you)
• have something that could be used to make graffiti, for example, spray paint, a gouging tool or even a texta.
A public place includes:
• a shop
• in or around a train station
• on public transport (buses, trams or trains)
• a school
• a church
• a hospital or welfare centre like the Salvation Army.
The police officer can search anything you are carrying and the car you are in. They can search your car even if you are not in it.
In general, a police officer can search you if they have:
• a warrant
• arrested you.
If a police officer searches you, they must make a written record that they did the search. You can ask for a copy of the record at the time or later. This is free if you ask for the record within one year of the search.
When can a police officer search me without a warrant?
Searches by consent If the police officer does not have a warrant or the authority to search you, they might ask you if you will let them search you. This is called a ‘search by consent’. You can say no. If you say yes, the police officer should get your agreement in writing. You can complain if this does not happen.
Searches in a ‘public place’
The police officer does not need a warrant to search you in a public place if they reasonably suspect you:
• have illegal drugs
• have things that can explode or ignite
• have guns or weapons like knives, imitation guns, knuckle-dusters or nunchakus
• are in an area where a lot of violent crime happens (they can use this fact to show they have reasonable grounds to search you)
• have something that could be used to make graffiti, for example, spray paint, a gouging tool or even a texta.
A public place includes:
• a shop
• in or around a train station
• on public transport (buses, trams or trains)
• a school
• a church
• a hospital or welfare centre like the Salvation Army.
The police officer can search anything you are carrying and the car you are in. They can search your car even if you are not in it.
Do I have to give my name and address?
You must give your name and address in all of the circumstances below. It is an offence to give a false name and address.
In general
A police officer can only ask you to give your name and address if they have a reasonable belief you:
• have committed an offence
• are about to commit an offence.
For example, a police officer can ask you for your age, name and address if they have a reasonable belief that you bought alcohol and you are under 18. The police officer must tell you what offence they think you have committed.
Driving
The police officer may signal for you to stop driving. You must stop and show the police officer your licence.
Helping with an investigation
The police officer may believe you have information that could help them investigate an indictable offence. You must give the police officer your name and address if asked. The police officer must tell you what offence they think you will be able to
help them investigate.
Can I get the name of the police officer?
Yes. The police officer does not have to give you their details automatically. They will if you ask. Ask for their name, their rank and the police station where they work. You can also ask for these details in writing. This information may be useful
later. For example, you may want to complain about the police officer or report them. The police officer can be fined for not giving you their name, rank and police station. You need to complain for this to happen.
Do I have to answer any other questions?
Police may want to ask you more questions. They may start by questioning you as a witness. Then they may question you as a suspect. The police should tell you if they think you are a suspect in a criminal offence. They will tell you your rights before they ask you questions. In either case, you do not have to answer any other questions. If the police officer tells you that you are breaking the law by refusing them information, ask to speak with a lawyer.
However, if someone was using your vehicle and the police officer asks you for that person’s name, you have to give it. If you do not, the police could charge you with a summary offence. If the magistrate finds you guilty at court, you could lose your
licence for two years or more. The police officer may use anything you say to them to arrest or charge you. There is no such thing as speaking ‘off the record’. The police could use what you said as evidence in court to show that you broke the law.
Can a police officer ask for my phone number and do I have to give it?
Yes, they can ask. You do not have to give it to them.
You must give your name and address in all of the circumstances below. It is an offence to give a false name and address.
In general
A police officer can only ask you to give your name and address if they have a reasonable belief you:
• have committed an offence
• are about to commit an offence.
For example, a police officer can ask you for your age, name and address if they have a reasonable belief that you bought alcohol and you are under 18. The police officer must tell you what offence they think you have committed.
Driving
The police officer may signal for you to stop driving. You must stop and show the police officer your licence.
Helping with an investigation
The police officer may believe you have information that could help them investigate an indictable offence. You must give the police officer your name and address if asked. The police officer must tell you what offence they think you will be able to
help them investigate.
Can I get the name of the police officer?
Yes. The police officer does not have to give you their details automatically. They will if you ask. Ask for their name, their rank and the police station where they work. You can also ask for these details in writing. This information may be useful
later. For example, you may want to complain about the police officer or report them. The police officer can be fined for not giving you their name, rank and police station. You need to complain for this to happen.
Do I have to answer any other questions?
Police may want to ask you more questions. They may start by questioning you as a witness. Then they may question you as a suspect. The police should tell you if they think you are a suspect in a criminal offence. They will tell you your rights before they ask you questions. In either case, you do not have to answer any other questions. If the police officer tells you that you are breaking the law by refusing them information, ask to speak with a lawyer.
However, if someone was using your vehicle and the police officer asks you for that person’s name, you have to give it. If you do not, the police could charge you with a summary offence. If the magistrate finds you guilty at court, you could lose your
licence for two years or more. The police officer may use anything you say to them to arrest or charge you. There is no such thing as speaking ‘off the record’. The police could use what you said as evidence in court to show that you broke the law.
Can a police officer ask for my phone number and do I have to give it?
Yes, they can ask. You do not have to give it to them.
Right to silence
A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and cannot be made to provide information or evidence that could incriminate them. The right is recognised in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). No person can be compelled to testify against themself or to confess to guilt. Other than giving their name and address, a person does not have to answer questions put to them by police
Right to silence can be revoked by approval from the Supreme Court in situations where police are investigating a matter of organised crime. An organised crime offence is defined as one that is an indictable offence in Victoria where certain conditions exist:
- two or more offenders are involved
- substantial planning an organisation are involved
- systematic and continuing criminal activity is apparent
- the purpose is obtaining profit, gain, power and influence
A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and cannot be made to provide information or evidence that could incriminate them. The right is recognised in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). No person can be compelled to testify against themself or to confess to guilt. Other than giving their name and address, a person does not have to answer questions put to them by police
Right to silence can be revoked by approval from the Supreme Court in situations where police are investigating a matter of organised crime. An organised crime offence is defined as one that is an indictable offence in Victoria where certain conditions exist:
- two or more offenders are involved
- substantial planning an organisation are involved
- systematic and continuing criminal activity is apparent
- the purpose is obtaining profit, gain, power and influence
Related vocabulary
Week ending: 21st April
Key Knowledge 5: Sanctions under criminal law and their effectiveness
Sanctions and their purpose
Learning Intention:
- What is a sanction? - List the different types of sanctions. - List the objectives of sanctions - Which sanction is most effective? Why Tasks: 1. Create a PowerPoint that will outline the areas stated in the Learning Intention. 2. The PowerPoint must have three images included |
|
Three different types of sanctions that are used by the courts:
1. Imprisonment
- Imprisonment is seen as the most severe punishment.
- It is used for the most serious crimes and for habitual reoffenders.
- The aim of imprisonment is to:
* Remove the offender from society as protection for members of that community.
* Punish the offender for their breach of the law
* Deter the offender from re-committing or other potential offenders from committing a crime.
* Send a message to the community that the behaviour is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.
* Provides opportunity for offenders to seek rehabilitation.
- Imprisonment is seen as the most severe punishment.
- It is used for the most serious crimes and for habitual reoffenders.
- The aim of imprisonment is to:
* Remove the offender from society as protection for members of that community.
* Punish the offender for their breach of the law
* Deter the offender from re-committing or other potential offenders from committing a crime.
* Send a message to the community that the behaviour is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.
* Provides opportunity for offenders to seek rehabilitation.
Imprisonment
Imprisonment is seen as the most severe punishment available to courts and as such it is used as a last resort. It is used for the most serious crimes and for habitual reoffenders.
Concurrent sentences
When a person is imprisoned for a number of offences, the person may be directed to serve these terms concurrently (at the same time). Concurrent sentecs cannot be set for serious sexual or violent offences and , in some cases, may not be set for default on payment of fines.
Cumulative sentences
In some instances the court will order that a person who has been convicted of a number of offences serve terms of imprisonment cumulatively. Cumulative sentences will be set for serious sexual or violent offences. Cumulative sentences also set for these other offences:
- not paying a fine
- prisoners committing prison offences or an escape
- offences committed while released under a parole
- offences committed while released on bail
Indefinite sentences
Indefinite sentences can be imposed for serious violent or sexual offenders if the court is satisfied that eh offender is a serious danger to the community. Such sentences may be reviewed every three years.
Parole
A person serving a prison sentence could - depending on the nature of the crime, the length of the sentence, and the behaviour of the prisoner - be released earlier than the full term of the sentence, through a process known as parole. The court, at the time of sentencing, will set a non-parole period. A non-parole period must be set for all terms of imprisonment greater than two years.
Imprisonment is seen as the most severe punishment available to courts and as such it is used as a last resort. It is used for the most serious crimes and for habitual reoffenders.
Concurrent sentences
When a person is imprisoned for a number of offences, the person may be directed to serve these terms concurrently (at the same time). Concurrent sentecs cannot be set for serious sexual or violent offences and , in some cases, may not be set for default on payment of fines.
Cumulative sentences
In some instances the court will order that a person who has been convicted of a number of offences serve terms of imprisonment cumulatively. Cumulative sentences will be set for serious sexual or violent offences. Cumulative sentences also set for these other offences:
- not paying a fine
- prisoners committing prison offences or an escape
- offences committed while released under a parole
- offences committed while released on bail
Indefinite sentences
Indefinite sentences can be imposed for serious violent or sexual offenders if the court is satisfied that eh offender is a serious danger to the community. Such sentences may be reviewed every three years.
Parole
A person serving a prison sentence could - depending on the nature of the crime, the length of the sentence, and the behaviour of the prisoner - be released earlier than the full term of the sentence, through a process known as parole. The court, at the time of sentencing, will set a non-parole period. A non-parole period must be set for all terms of imprisonment greater than two years.
2. Community Corrections Order
A CCO is a flexible sanction that can have different conditions applied based on the circumstances of the offence, the offenders needs and situation, and the direction of the court.
Some conditions available within a CCO are:
* Undertaking rehabilitation
* Unpaid community work
* Restrictions on offender's whereabouts
* Terms of imprisonment or fines can also be attached to CCOs
A CCO is a flexible sanction that can have different conditions applied based on the circumstances of the offence, the offenders needs and situation, and the direction of the court.
Some conditions available within a CCO are:
* Undertaking rehabilitation
* Unpaid community work
* Restrictions on offender's whereabouts
* Terms of imprisonment or fines can also be attached to CCOs
3. Fines
- A fine is one of the least severe penalties out of the three above.
- A fine is a monetary penalty to be paid by the convicted offender.
- Fines are set in 'penalty units'. Each penalty unit is equal to $155.46.
- A fine is a common punishment for people convicted of summary offences in the Magistrates' Court.
- A fine is one of the least severe penalties out of the three above.
- A fine is a monetary penalty to be paid by the convicted offender.
- Fines are set in 'penalty units'. Each penalty unit is equal to $155.46.
- A fine is a common punishment for people convicted of summary offences in the Magistrates' Court.
|
5 purposes of sentencing
|
Week 2: 28th April
Key Knowledge 8: The impact of criminal acts on individuals and society
Victim Impact Statement
Victims of crime in Victoria are given the opportunity to make an official statement to the court about how a crime has affected their lives. These statement are called victim impact statements and can be made in court if the accused is found guilty. They are used to 'assist the court in determining sentence'.
Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (VOCAT)
Learning Intention: Students should learn the ways in which victims are compensated following a violent crime
Learning Intention: Students should learn the ways in which victims are compensated following a violent crime
Primary Victim
Secondary victim
Related Victim
What can the Tribunal award financial assistance for?
Comparison of Australia's approach to sentencing vs another countries
Capital punishment in Australia and Indonesia
Capital punishment (the death penalty) was abolished in Victoria in 1975 and in 1973 for Commonwealth offences. It was removed as a punishment for murder in all states by 1984. Capital punishment was last used in 1967, when Ronald Ryan was hanged in Victoria. Ryan was hanged at the infamous Pentridge Prison after he killed a prison officer, George Hodson. The death penalty, therefore, is no longer a sentencing option for the judiciary in Australia. In 1990, Australia signed a United Nations protocol that called upon all signatories to abolish the death penalty in their own countries, and to advocate for its abolition worldwide. Australia does not sanction the state killing individuals, regardless of the crime they have committed.
Australia’s sentencing laws recognise that everyone has an alienable human right to live, even the worst offenders, such as those who commit murder, drug trafficking and acts of terrorism. Sentencing a person to death and executing them violates that right. Section 9 of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006 states: ‘Every person has the right to life and has the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life’. There are limited circumstances where it is acceptable for the state to take away someone's life, such as if a police officer acts justifiably in self-defence.
In Indonesia, capital punishment exists as a punishment and applies to 17 crimes, although currently it is used for three crimes only: murder, certain drug offences and terrorism. Around 130 people are currently facing the death penalty in Indonesia, with half of them convicted drug traffickers. Many have been on death row for 10 years or more. The lengthy time spent in prison before the ultimate penalty is carried out is due to the time involved in appeals and applications to the President for clemency. When final appeals to the courts and the President have been exhausted, preparations are made for the sentence to be carried out. Prisoners and their families are notified 72 days in advance of the pending execution. Capital punishment is carried out in Indonesia by firing squad.
Capital punishment (the death penalty) was abolished in Victoria in 1975 and in 1973 for Commonwealth offences. It was removed as a punishment for murder in all states by 1984. Capital punishment was last used in 1967, when Ronald Ryan was hanged in Victoria. Ryan was hanged at the infamous Pentridge Prison after he killed a prison officer, George Hodson. The death penalty, therefore, is no longer a sentencing option for the judiciary in Australia. In 1990, Australia signed a United Nations protocol that called upon all signatories to abolish the death penalty in their own countries, and to advocate for its abolition worldwide. Australia does not sanction the state killing individuals, regardless of the crime they have committed.
Australia’s sentencing laws recognise that everyone has an alienable human right to live, even the worst offenders, such as those who commit murder, drug trafficking and acts of terrorism. Sentencing a person to death and executing them violates that right. Section 9 of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006 states: ‘Every person has the right to life and has the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life’. There are limited circumstances where it is acceptable for the state to take away someone's life, such as if a police officer acts justifiably in self-defence.
In Indonesia, capital punishment exists as a punishment and applies to 17 crimes, although currently it is used for three crimes only: murder, certain drug offences and terrorism. Around 130 people are currently facing the death penalty in Indonesia, with half of them convicted drug traffickers. Many have been on death row for 10 years or more. The lengthy time spent in prison before the ultimate penalty is carried out is due to the time involved in appeals and applications to the President for clemency. When final appeals to the courts and the President have been exhausted, preparations are made for the sentence to be carried out. Prisoners and their families are notified 72 days in advance of the pending execution. Capital punishment is carried out in Indonesia by firing squad.
Victoria’s approach to sentencing serious offenders
When an accused is found guilty of a criminal offence, the court will impose a penalty known as a ‘sanction’. Criminal sanctions are necessary to hold people accountable for an offence, provide incentives for people to obey the law, and to protect society. Underpinning sanctions are a set of standards, based on human rights protections, to ensure that offenders are dealt with fairly and justly, limiting the types of sanctions that can be imposed and requiring that the sanction chosen is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
A number of principles form the basis of sentencing in Victoria, including:
· the sentence must be no more severe than is necessary to meet the purposes of sentencing
· the overall punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the offending behaviour
· similar sentences should be imposed for similar offences committed by offenders in similar circumstances
· where an offender is to serve more than one sentence, the overall sentence must be just and appropriate in the light of the overall offending behaviour.
When deciding on an appropriate sanction, the magistrate or judge must have regard to the purposes for which sentences can be imposed, as outlined in Section 5 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic.). The purposes of sentencing, as outlined in the Act, are:
· just punishment
· deterrence of the defendant and others from committing similar offences
· the establishment of conditions that the court considers will enable the offender’s rehabilitation
· denunciation (condemnation) of the defendant’s conduct
· the protection of the community from the defendant
or a combination of the above.
For young offenders, rehabilitation is the main consideration in sentencing.
Section 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991 sets out the factors that must be taken into account when sentencing an adult in Victoria. These factors include:
· the maximum penalty for the offence
· current sentencing practices
· the nature and gravity of the offence
· the defendant’s culpability
· whether the defendant has pleaded guilty
· the defendant’s previous character
· the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors (such as remorse)
· the impact of the offence on the victim
· any loss, injury or damage resulting directly from the offence.
Source: Sentencing Advisory Council: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/about-sentencing/sentencing-process/sentencing-principles-purposes-factors
When an accused is found guilty of a criminal offence, the court will impose a penalty known as a ‘sanction’. Criminal sanctions are necessary to hold people accountable for an offence, provide incentives for people to obey the law, and to protect society. Underpinning sanctions are a set of standards, based on human rights protections, to ensure that offenders are dealt with fairly and justly, limiting the types of sanctions that can be imposed and requiring that the sanction chosen is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
A number of principles form the basis of sentencing in Victoria, including:
· the sentence must be no more severe than is necessary to meet the purposes of sentencing
· the overall punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the offending behaviour
· similar sentences should be imposed for similar offences committed by offenders in similar circumstances
· where an offender is to serve more than one sentence, the overall sentence must be just and appropriate in the light of the overall offending behaviour.
When deciding on an appropriate sanction, the magistrate or judge must have regard to the purposes for which sentences can be imposed, as outlined in Section 5 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic.). The purposes of sentencing, as outlined in the Act, are:
· just punishment
· deterrence of the defendant and others from committing similar offences
· the establishment of conditions that the court considers will enable the offender’s rehabilitation
· denunciation (condemnation) of the defendant’s conduct
· the protection of the community from the defendant
or a combination of the above.
For young offenders, rehabilitation is the main consideration in sentencing.
Section 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991 sets out the factors that must be taken into account when sentencing an adult in Victoria. These factors include:
· the maximum penalty for the offence
· current sentencing practices
· the nature and gravity of the offence
· the defendant’s culpability
· whether the defendant has pleaded guilty
· the defendant’s previous character
· the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors (such as remorse)
· the impact of the offence on the victim
· any loss, injury or damage resulting directly from the offence.
Source: Sentencing Advisory Council: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/about-sentencing/sentencing-process/sentencing-principles-purposes-factors
Indonesia’s approach to sentencing serious offenders
Fines and terms of imprisonment are widely used in Indonesia, whereas Australia uses a broader range of sentences including non-custodial sentences such as good behaviour bonds, community correction orders (such as unpaid community work, treatment or rehabilitation, place or area exclusion, and judicial monitoring), probation orders, as well as fines and imprisonment.
The death penalty has existed as a punishment in Indonesia from the inception of the Republic of Indonesia in 1949, the first execution taking place in 1973.
Former Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, publicly stated that his intention was to shift away from capital punishment. However, the current President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, has resumed executions and has expressed support for the death penalty since his election in 2014.
In 2013, Indonesia ended an unofficial five-year moratorium on the death penalty with the execution of six prisoners convicted of drug-related offences. In July 2014, President Joko Widodo came to power promising to introduce a range of reforms, including the eradication of corruption by stamping out graft and drug trafficking. Consequently, he did not grant clemency appeals to six drug traffickers, including five foreigners, who were executed in January this year. The President is a vocal supporter of capital punishment and has said that Indonesia is in a state of emergency due to drugs, with many people dying every day. He has also rejected appeals for presidential clemency by other prisoners.
Despite a decline in the use of the death penalty and substantially reduced support for its use worldwide, President Wikodo says he will not pardon drug traffickers on death row and this hard stance is intended to serve as ‘shock therapy’. He has stated, ‘This crime warrants no forgiveness’ and ‘Indonesia is in a state of emergency with regard to drug use’. He has also said ‘nearly 40–50 Indonesians die every day due to drug consumption’ and ‘Indonesia has an estimated 4.5 million people affected by drug consumption, of whom 1.2 million cannot be rehabilitated due to their poor health conditions’.
While laws were introduced in Indonesia in 2009 to decriminalise drug use, thousands of drug users are jailed every year, and overcrowded conditions, lack of hygiene and high HIV levels in prisons only compound the problem. Many health and legal professionals argue that combating drug-related crime is better served by a health-based medical rehabilitation approach than a criminal law approach. During his presidency, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono stated that in drug law enforcement it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between victims and offenders.
Fines and terms of imprisonment are widely used in Indonesia, whereas Australia uses a broader range of sentences including non-custodial sentences such as good behaviour bonds, community correction orders (such as unpaid community work, treatment or rehabilitation, place or area exclusion, and judicial monitoring), probation orders, as well as fines and imprisonment.
The death penalty has existed as a punishment in Indonesia from the inception of the Republic of Indonesia in 1949, the first execution taking place in 1973.
Former Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, publicly stated that his intention was to shift away from capital punishment. However, the current President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, has resumed executions and has expressed support for the death penalty since his election in 2014.
In 2013, Indonesia ended an unofficial five-year moratorium on the death penalty with the execution of six prisoners convicted of drug-related offences. In July 2014, President Joko Widodo came to power promising to introduce a range of reforms, including the eradication of corruption by stamping out graft and drug trafficking. Consequently, he did not grant clemency appeals to six drug traffickers, including five foreigners, who were executed in January this year. The President is a vocal supporter of capital punishment and has said that Indonesia is in a state of emergency due to drugs, with many people dying every day. He has also rejected appeals for presidential clemency by other prisoners.
Despite a decline in the use of the death penalty and substantially reduced support for its use worldwide, President Wikodo says he will not pardon drug traffickers on death row and this hard stance is intended to serve as ‘shock therapy’. He has stated, ‘This crime warrants no forgiveness’ and ‘Indonesia is in a state of emergency with regard to drug use’. He has also said ‘nearly 40–50 Indonesians die every day due to drug consumption’ and ‘Indonesia has an estimated 4.5 million people affected by drug consumption, of whom 1.2 million cannot be rehabilitated due to their poor health conditions’.
While laws were introduced in Indonesia in 2009 to decriminalise drug use, thousands of drug users are jailed every year, and overcrowded conditions, lack of hygiene and high HIV levels in prisons only compound the problem. Many health and legal professionals argue that combating drug-related crime is better served by a health-based medical rehabilitation approach than a criminal law approach. During his presidency, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono stated that in drug law enforcement it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between victims and offenders.
Indonesia’s constitutional recognition of the ‘right to life’
The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia has a number of human rights provisions, including the ‘right to life’ in Article 28A. Despite having the right to life as a constitutional guarantee, Indonesia retains the death penalty.
In 2007, Indonesia’s Constitutional Court considered the appeal of members of the Bali Nine smuggling plot and held that the death penalty for drug offences was not unconstitutional or a violation of the right to life. It found that drug trafficking threatens the lives of citizens and that drug-related offences ‘adversely affect the economic, cultural and political foundation of society’ and entail ‘a danger of incalculable gravity’. In a 2009 ruling, the Constitutional Court affirmed the right to life is not absolute and that capital punishment is a justified restriction of that right. In contrast, in 2012, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of a defendant to a term of imprisonment. It ruled that the death penalty violated Indonesia’s constitutional right to life.
Indonesia’s death penalty for drug-related convictions
The Indonesian government regards drug trafficking as a very serious crime, along with murder and terrorism. Indonesia has been a transit country for drugs for years and drug use among its young, even in remote villages, is soaring, according to official figures. Indonesia has adopted a punitive approach to sentencing drug traffickers.
Despite efforts to reduce illegal drug dealing and use, crime statistics do not show a decline in the numbers of users and dealers. Criminal sanctions appear not to deter those who commit drug-related offences. However, the Indonesian government views the death penalty as a deterrent and believes it has the right to take a person’s life to set an example to other drug traffickers or would-be drug traffickers.
The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia has a number of human rights provisions, including the ‘right to life’ in Article 28A. Despite having the right to life as a constitutional guarantee, Indonesia retains the death penalty.
In 2007, Indonesia’s Constitutional Court considered the appeal of members of the Bali Nine smuggling plot and held that the death penalty for drug offences was not unconstitutional or a violation of the right to life. It found that drug trafficking threatens the lives of citizens and that drug-related offences ‘adversely affect the economic, cultural and political foundation of society’ and entail ‘a danger of incalculable gravity’. In a 2009 ruling, the Constitutional Court affirmed the right to life is not absolute and that capital punishment is a justified restriction of that right. In contrast, in 2012, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence of a defendant to a term of imprisonment. It ruled that the death penalty violated Indonesia’s constitutional right to life.
Indonesia’s death penalty for drug-related convictions
The Indonesian government regards drug trafficking as a very serious crime, along with murder and terrorism. Indonesia has been a transit country for drugs for years and drug use among its young, even in remote villages, is soaring, according to official figures. Indonesia has adopted a punitive approach to sentencing drug traffickers.
Despite efforts to reduce illegal drug dealing and use, crime statistics do not show a decline in the numbers of users and dealers. Criminal sanctions appear not to deter those who commit drug-related offences. However, the Indonesian government views the death penalty as a deterrent and believes it has the right to take a person’s life to set an example to other drug traffickers or would-be drug traffickers.