BAN REMISSION FOR CORRUPTOR

Negative 3 :

FIRST, As mentioned earlier that under Article 34 of Government Regulation No. 32 of 1999 stated explicitly that
remission is a right of every prisoner. Although there are several requirements that must be met in order to obtain
remission, Act No. 12 of 1995 concerning Corrections also states that remission is a right. Thus, it can be concluded that
the wicked as any deeds done by the convict, the convict still clung to the right to get remission. In this context,
convicted of corruption have the right to get remission.

You know, corruptor is a human just like us and they have the same right with us, include the right of remission. And if
we ban remission for corruptor it will violate their human right. So, why we dont give them the same rights, the same
chance to get remission?

we have to be fair to them, our country upholds the principle of justice, right? so, we can not do injustice to anyone,
including the corruptor.

Second, relying on the constitution of our country, namely the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945
which regulates about one in principle of state of law is equality before the law (equality before law) are listed in Article
28D paragraph (1), which describes that each people are entitled to recognition, security and yet the most important
thing in the article is getting equal treatment before the law.

Third, you need to know also that the remissions is not simply given away for inmates, but there is a requirement that
must be taken by inmates to obtain the remission. Just as stipulated in Government Regulation No. 32 Year 1999
regarding the procedure for the right of prisoners to obtain the remission. And requirements that will encourage
inmates to behave well so that it can be accepted in society.

Basically, remission is one means of coaching in the System of Corrections that works to accelerate efforts to minimize
the effect of prisonisasi, to speed up the process of assigning responsibility in society at large, as a means of behavior
modification in the process of coaching while in the penitentiary, can indirectly reduce symptoms of over capacity in
prisons, and in the context of the efficiency of the State budget. [11] Thus, it is not fitting for remissions to corruption
convicts stopped considering the many functions that run in remissions.

From these definitions it can be ascertained that the remission was right to convict Therefore this right must be
respected as part of human rights, especially the right to convict because it was the advent of the opinion that the
remission should not be given to the perpetrators of acts that corruption is wrong and do not understand the rules
clearly.

Based on the description FROM MY FRIEND, it can be concluded that every convicted person entitled to a remission
ranging from criminal acts mildest to the most severe criminal offenses and organized or extraordinary crime. The
suspension or even revocation of the right to earn remission for corruption convicts is an act contrary to human rights,
social justice, and correctional principles as adopted by Indonesia.
PRO 3 :

A wrong step if the government still wants to give remission to inmates corruption, because corruption is the greatest
enemy of the Indonesian people. And remissions for corruption convicts have betrayed the ideals of the Proclamation,
which the founding fathers we are trying to liberate the people of Indonesia but as colonized by corruption by giving
remission to criminals. As well as we know that the characteristics of corruption can not be equated with other crimes,
because something is fundamentally why we need to distinguish between corruption with ordinary crime, although
corruption can not be categorized as an extraordinary crime (extraordinary crime) as determined in the classification of
extraordinary crime in the Rome statute.

First, the granting of remission for corruption convicts against the spirit of the government to eradicate corruption.
Judging from the theoretical aspect, based on the absolute theory of punishment that the punishment meted out as
punishment given to punish the perpetrators of crimes as a form of justice. That is, it is clear that the perpetrators
should get punishment as a form of a just retribution for his actions and Governments are required to be fair it was, as
we know that the Indonesian people want it let alone corruption. Furthermore, how the Indonesian people would
prosper if corruption still continues to grow, that essentially they are the biggest enemy of the Indonesian people who
steal public money only for personal or group interests only. And when the remissions granted to convicted of
corruption remained the true essence of the objective of sentencing will injure themselves and depriving the sense of
justice for the people of Indonesia.

SECOND, in terms of the philosophical aspects that punishment for the perpetrators given that perpetrators deterrent
for deeds he had done even provide favors for the perpetrators, and it was clearly contrary to the law enforcement in
Indonesia. It also saw the sociological aspect, the true people want no remissions for convicted of corruption because
corruption is the biggest enemy of the Indonesian people, as evidenced by the number of times that are members of the
People's Movement Charge Promise (saws) who threw rotten tomatoes banners bearing the image of dozens of faces
dialun main criminals Brebes, Central Java.

Third , the reality proves that the granting of remission is not very precise with the current conditions in view of
corruption worrying enough in this country to put Indonesia on the order of 107 countries that corrupt based on survey
results CPI (Corruption Perception Index) which was released in 2014 ago , such remissions gayus Tambunan that such a
sentence is not in the trend even make corruption deepened.

In connection with the ideals of justice as the highest positive law, remissions to corruption convicts an injury against the
purpose of the law itself. This is because remissions for corruption convicts only bring justice against the perpetrators
irrespective of victims of corruption are spread throughout the archipelago. By stopping terpidan remissions for
corruption, Indonesia has provided justice to take vengeance on corruption crimes committed by the convicted person.

In connection with public acceptance, remissions for corruption convicts is a policy that reaped the refusal of people
from all over the country. It is characterized by demand Mars Society Anti-Corruption South Sulawesi to the government
not to grant remission to inmates corruption through petition in Festival of Anti-Corruption in Fort Rotterdam Makassar
[15]. The rejection also occurred in Banyuwangi, East Java [16] and the Sumatra region [17]. In fact, the rejection also
bermunculam in Parliament [18]. Thus, the policy of granting remissions for corruption convicts have no basis
Sociological doctrine, because it is not accepted by society.