en

Law Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs

  • Received 12.04.2025,
  • Revised 04.09.2025,
  • Accepted 29.09.2025
Download article Download article
Volume 15, No. 3, 2025
  • death penalty; rarest of the rare; judge; dignified justice; Pancasila
  • https://doi.org/10.63341/naia-chasopis/3.2025.82
  • Pages 82-91

This study examined the legal relevance and urgency of applying the Rarest of the Rare doctrine within the Indonesian criminal justice system as a limiting principle on judgesʼ authority to impose the death penalty. Law No. 1 of 2023 brings fundamental changes by no longer categorising the death penalty as a primary punishment but rather as an alternative special punishment subject to strict substantive and procedural requirements. This research employed a normative legal research method through statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches and refers to several jurisprudences of the Supreme Court of India, such as in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. This doctrine requires that the death penalty be imposed only in extremely exceptional cases with a high level of brutality, demonstrating moral depravity, and when the rehabilitation of the perpetrator is deemed impossible. This research recommended the establishment of judicial guidelines in Indonesia to limit judicial discretion, ensure accountability of decisions, and align penal practices with the values of Pancasila and the theory of dignified justice. This doctrine was proposed as a filtering mechanism so that the death penalty is applied only as an ultimum remedium in a proportional, cautious, and humane manner to protect the right to life and reflect a more just and humane direction in criminal law policy

References

  1. Andriawan, W. (2022). Pancasila perspective on the development of legal philosophy: Relation of justice and progressive law. Volksgeist: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Dan Konstitusi, 5(1). doi: 10.24090/VOLKSGEIST.V5I1.6361.
  2. Bhaskar, A. (2023). Chances of reform as a mitigating factor in death penalty cases in India: Issues and challenges. Indian Journal of Law and Justice, 14(2).
  3. Cahyani, G.T., Bilkis Sholehah, S., Salsabillah, D.N., Ramadhana, M.A., Pratama, R.A., & Antoni, H. (2023). Analysis of the death penalty in Indonesia from a human rights perspective and alternative legal enforcement. Jurnal Universitas Muhammadiyah Jakarta, 7(1), 167-184.
  4. Cahyono, J., & Santiago, F. (2023). Reconstruction of conditional death penalty norms in the perspective of renewing Indonesian criminal law. Edunity: Kajian Ilmu Sosial Dan Pendidikan, 2(1), 47-55. doi: 10.57096/edunity.v1i05.35.
  5. Chandra, A. (2012). Gender dimensions of the death penalty in India. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1617603.
  6. Chaturvedi, A. (2023). The rarest of the rare. Retrieved from https://pure.jgu.edu.in/id/eprint/6184/1/Delhi---The-Statesman-06-04-2023-page-11.pdf.
  7. Clemens Dion, Y.T. (2023). An appreciation of the amendment to the death penalty provisions. Diskursus – Jurnal Filsafat Dan Teologi STF Driyarkara, 19(2), 234-256. doi: 10.36383/diskursus.v19i2.376.
  8. Deshpande, M., & Gurpur, S. (2023). Connecting the dots in “rarest of rare”: Is judicial discretion the perfection of reason? Tracking judicial discretion in death penalty cases in India. Cardiometry, 360-365. doi: 10.18137/ cardiometry.2022.25.360367.
  9. Deva, S. (2014). Death penalty in the “rarest of rare” cases: A critique of judicial choice-making. In Confronting capital punishment in Asia (pp. 238-286). Oxford: Oxford Academic Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685776.003.0014.
  10. Dewanto, D.R., & Susanti, R. (2023). The death penalty under Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Indonesian Criminal Code: A human rights perspective. Wijayakusuma Law Review, 5(1), 64-70. doi: 10.51921/wlr.v5i1.239.
  11. Diwakar, J. (2022). The court of bigotry: Contested sexuality of dalit and non-dalit women. Contemporary Voice of Dalit, 14(2), 199-211. doi: 10.1177/2455328X221106537.
  12. Duan, I.K., & Susilawati, M.D. (2023). The death penalty for corruption offenders in China and Indonesia (a comparative study). International Journal of Social Science and Human Research, 6(11), 6791-6797. doi: 10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i11-30.
  13. Fitriani, F. (2023). The imposition of the death penalty on criminal offenders under Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Indonesian Criminal Code. SENTRI: Jurnal Riset Ilmiah, 2(8), 3016-3024. doi: 10.55681/sentri.v2i8.1327.
  14. Gunawardena, S.A., Liyanage, U.A., Weeratna, J.B., Mendis, N.D.N.A., Perera, H.J.M., Jayasekara, R.W., & Fernando, R. (2017). Forensic age estimation in anti-piracy trials in Seychelles: Experiences and challenges faced. Forensic Science International, 270, 278.e1-278.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.11.010.
  15. Jain, Y. (2025). Life or death: Capital punishment in India. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5283267.
  16. Lumbanraja, B. (2023). A holistic analysis of moral offenses punishable by death in Indonesia from the perspective of human rights, Pancasila, and the moral ethics of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Fiat Iustitia: Jurnal Hukum, 3(2), 177-188. doi: 10.54367/fiat.v3i2.2533.
  17. Pattnaik, A., & Shahi, S.K. (2024). Death penalty in India: A review with sample cases. In Sustainability and equity: Economic democracy and social empowerment. New York: Nova Science Publisher. doi: 10.52305/NHGZ0466.
  18. Phulwary, D. (2018). Criminological study of death penalty and ways to remove discrimination in death award. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2481602.
  19. Prasetyo, T. (2019). Dignified justice from a legal theory perspective. Bandung: Nusamedia.
  20. Prasetyo, T., & Wartoyo, F. X. (2021). Understanding Indonesian electronic data law through dignified justice theory. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 24(1).
  21. Rajkumari, & Singh, R.D.P. (2022). “The doctrine of rarest of rare”: A critical analysis. Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, 2(4), 676-683. doi: IJIRL/V2-I4/A64.
  22. Rao, R.V., & Sharma, P. (2022). Death sentence in India: Is it rare yet arbitrary? Retrieved from https://www.project39a.com/dpir.
  23. Riyadi, P. (2023). Construction of death penalty legal arrangements in Indonesia. Journal of Political and Legal Sovereignty, 1(1), 5-14. doi: 10.38142/jpls.v1i1.32.
  24. Sidabukke, S.M. (2023). Double punishment in the waiting time for death penalty: A study of human rights protection in Indonesia. Lex Prospicit, 1(1). doi: 10.19166/lp.v1i1.6634.
  25. Sukardi, E., Pasaribu, D., & Kwang, V.C. (2021). Efforts to address domestic violence triggered by COVID-19: A perspective from the dignified justice theory. Jurnal Lemhannas RI, 9(1), 11-24. doi: 10.55960/jlri.v9i1.373.
  26. Sulistiani, L., & Fakhriah, E.L. (2023). The effect of extra judicial settlement in criminal cases based on the principle of ultimum remedium. Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 10(3), 300-320. doi: 10.22304/pjih.v10n3.a1.
  27. Surendranath, A., Vishwanath, N., & Dash, P.P. (2019). Penological justifications as sentencing factors in death penalty sentencing. Journal of National Law University Delhi, 6(2), 107-125. doi: 10.1177/2277401720972852.
  28. Susilo, E. (2025). An analysis of the concept of the principle of legality in the New Indonesian Criminal Code: A legal certainty perspective. In B. Sujatmiko (Ed.), Anthology of judicial studies (pp. 1-19). Yogyakarta: CV. AKA HUKUM.
  29. Suyatno, S., & Yusuf, H. (2023). Death penalty for criminal actions in Indonesia in a legal perspective and human rights. Journal of Social Research, 2(9), 2925-2933. doi: 10.55324/josr.v2i9.1338.
  30. Syahlin, F.U., Andini, F.A., Lubis, M.A., & Usiono, U. (2024). Understanding the relationship between religion and the state. IJEDR: Indonesian Journal of Education and Development Research, 2(1), 515-518. doi: 10.57235/ijedr.v2i1.1822.
  31. Tongat. (2024). Death penalty in Indonesia: Between criminal law and Islamic law perspectives. Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, 32(1), 90-104. doi: 10.22219/ljih.v32i1.32335.
  32. Tri Setiawan, W., & Kurnianingsih, M. (2023). Assessing community service sentences as a new paradigm of corruption punishment based on cultural determinism. Justisi, 9(2), 116-132. doi: 10.33506/jurnaljustisi.v9i2.2328.
  33. Widijowati, D., & Adji, R.P. (2020). Legal psychology of judges to determine the defendantʼs ability to commit a crime. International Conference on Law, Economics and Health, 140, 60-63. doi: 10.2991/aebmr.k.200513.012.
  34. Wijayanto, E. (2022). Autonomy, Sharia regional regulations, and living law in the Pancasila-based rule of law state. Wicarana, 1(2), 150-160. doi: 10.57123/wicarana.v1i2.24.
  35. Zulkipli, M.W.A. (2023). The application of the lex fravo reo principle in the criminal justice system in Indonesia. Mandub: Jurnal Politik, Sosial, Hukum Dan Humaniora, 2(1), 199-208. doi: 10.59059/mandub.v2i1.895.