orlovlegal.com — THE Debate over the death penalty in Indonesia rarely settles for long. Every time an execution takes place — or is even rumored to be on the table — the media splits into two familiar camps: those who insist the maximum penalty must still be carried out, and those who argue capital punishment has no place in a modern legal system.
Oleg Orlov, a lawyer with PT Southeast Partnership Indonesia who practices in Bali and Jakarta, takes a somewhat different view of this black-and-white debate. Framing the death penalty as purely a legal issue, he argues, oversimplifies something far more complicated.
What is actually at stake
The core issue, he says, isn’t simply whether the law permits the death penalty — that answer is already clear, since Indonesia still allows it. The deeper question is whether society can accept the idea that the state has the authority to take someone’s life.
“This isn’t just a legal issue, it’s a social one,” he said. “The question is whether society can accept the possibility of a government institution killing someone, or ordering someone to be killed — that’s really what it comes down to.”
Who is involved in this debate
Several groups tend to clash on this issue: lawyers and legal practitioners on one side, families of victims of serious crimes on the other, and the judiciary — up to the Supreme Court — which ultimately has to decide.
Oleg acknowledges that many of his fellow legal practitioners view the death penalty as a relic of an earlier era, no longer relevant today. But he also points out that this view doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
“Human life, social life, is incredibly complicated. What one person might see as unacceptable, a victim’s family might see as entirely fair,” he said. “That’s what makes this such a complicated issue.”
When and where this issue plays out
This debate isn’t just an abstract talking point. In early 2026, a case involving the smuggling of nearly two tons of crystal methamphetamine aboard the vessel Sea Dragon Terawa drew national attention after prosecutors at the Batam District Attorney’s Office sought the death penalty for six crew members, including one named Fandi Ramadhan. Indonesia’s House of Representatives Commission III stepped in at the time, reminding the public that under the country’s new Criminal Code, the death penalty is meant to be an alternative sentence — not a primary one — to be applied only in highly selective circumstances, particularly when a defendant is not the mastermind or principal actor behind the crime. On March 5, 2026, the Batam District Court ultimately sentenced Fandi to five years in prison — not death.
Cases like this are what keep the death penalty debate alive in Indonesia’s public sphere: not only in the context of the most extreme crimes, such as mass killings, but also in questions of when the maximum penalty is appropriate to seek, and against whom. The context here is distinctly Indonesian, but the underlying question isn’t new — the United States, for instance, faces a similar tension, with the death penalty still on the books in a number of states even as many other countries have abolished it altogether.
Why Oleg believes the death penalty still has a place
Oleg doesn’t reject the idea that the death penalty can be retained — but only under strict conditions. In his view, the sentence should be reserved for the most serious crimes: murder, or mass killings, where many lives are lost.
“The death penalty could still be used, but only for truly severe criminal acts,” he explained.
How it should be applied
What he emphasizes isn’t really whether the death penalty should exist, but how the legal process around it should be carried out. According to Oleg, cases of this magnitude need to be examined in extensive detail, and the legal arguments behind them shouldn’t be tested by a single judge alone.
“These cases have to be reviewed in very close detail — the legal grounds shouldn’t just be examined by one judge, but potentially all the way up to the Supreme Court,” he said.
In other words: not a fast-tracked process, and not a decision made behind a single door. He sees this layered, multi-tier review as a safeguard against wrongful convictions — a risk that, in death penalty cases, can never be undone.
In the end, Oleg says, Indonesian law still leaves room for the death penalty. But that room, in his view, needs to be tightly guarded so it is never applied carelessly. (*)
