In a stark reflection of Indonesia’s persistent reliance on capital punishment, courts across the archipelago sentenced 85 individuals to death in 2024, contributing to a global surge in death penalty cases even as the number of executing countries dwindles. A recent report by Amnesty International underscores the Southeast Asian nation’s role in this troubling trend, raising questions about the future of its justice system amid growing international pressure for abolition.
A Global Surge in Executions
The Amnesty International report, titled “Death Sentences and Executions 2024,” released on April 8, 2025, paints a grim picture of capital punishment worldwide. Last year, 1,518 executions were recorded globally—a 32 percent increase from 1,153 in 2023 and the highest figure since 2015, when 1,634 executions took place. Yet, in a paradoxical shift, only 15 countries carried out executions in 2024, the lowest number on record for the second consecutive year. This dichotomy highlights a global movement away from the death penalty, with 113 countries fully abolitionist and 145 having abolished it in law or practice. 
Amnesty International’s secretary-general, Agnès Callamard, emphasized the significance of this trend. “With just 15 countries carrying out executions in 2024, this signals a move away from this cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment” she stated. Her words underscore a growing consensus against capital punishment, even as certain nations, including Indonesia, continue to impose death sentences at an alarming rate.
Indonesia’s Persistent Death Sentences
Indonesia stands out in the Southeast Asian region for its continued use of the death penalty, particularly in cases involving drug-related offenses and murder. Of the 85 individuals sentenced to death in 2024, 64 were convicted for drug crimes, while the remaining 21 were found guilty of murder. These figures contribute to a staggering global total of over 28,000 individuals awaiting execution as of last year.
While Indonesia has not carried out an execution since 2016—a pause that followed significant international outcry over the execution of foreign nationals in 2015—its courts show no signs of slowing down in handing out capital sentences. This persistence places Indonesia at odds with a global trend toward abolition and raises questions about the underlying drivers of its judicial approach. Analysts suggest that public support for harsh penalties, particularly in drug-related cases, combined with political reluctance to reform, sustains this practice.
Historical context adds depth to the current situation. In 2016, protests erupted in Jakarta, with activists gathering outside the presidential palace to demand clemency for death row inmates. Placards reading “Save MU”—referring to one of the inmates—and pleas directed at then-President Joko Widodo to spare lives captured the public’s emotional response to the issue. Although executions have been on hold since then, the continued imposition of death sentences suggests that the underlying policy framework remains unchanged.
Calls for Reform and Regional Comparisons
Human rights advocates in Indonesia are increasingly vocal about the need for reform. Usman Hamid, executive director of Amnesty International Indonesia, has urged the government to follow the example of neighboring Malaysia, which abolished the mandatory death penalty for serious offenses in 2023. “By choosing abolition or elimination of the death penalty, Indonesia can realize a justice system that is fair, humane, and in line with the global trend of ending the death penalty” Hamid said.
Malaysia’s reform offers a compelling case study. By removing mandatory death sentences, the country has granted judges greater discretion, often resulting in life imprisonment rather than execution for serious crimes. This shift has been lauded by international human rights groups as a step toward a more compassionate justice system. In contrast, Indonesia’s legal framework continues to mandate the death penalty for certain offenses, particularly drug trafficking, limiting judicial flexibility and perpetuating a punitive approach.
Beyond Malaysia, other Southeast Asian nations provide varied perspectives on capital punishment. Singapore, for instance, continues to execute individuals for drug offenses, often citing public safety and deterrence as justification. Vietnam, too, retains the death penalty for a range of crimes, though it has reduced the number of executable offenses in recent years. Meanwhile, the Philippines abolished capital punishment in 2006, reflecting a broader regional divide on the issue. Indonesia’s position within this spectrum—sentencing many but executing none since 2016—creates a unique tension between policy and practice.
Public Sentiment and Political Challenges
Public opinion in Indonesia remains a significant barrier to abolition. Many Indonesians view the death penalty as a necessary deterrent, particularly for drug trafficking, which is seen as a grave threat to societal stability. High-profile drug busts, often involving large quantities of narcotics, frequently dominate headlines, reinforcing public support for harsh penalties. Political leaders, aware of this sentiment, have historically been cautious about advocating for reform, fearing backlash from voters.
Yet, activists argue that public opinion is not monolithic. Grassroots movements, often led by families of death row inmates and supported by international organizations, continue to challenge the status quo. Social media platforms, including posts on X from human rights advocates, reveal a growing, albeit still minority, voice calling for a reevaluation of capital punishment. These voices often highlight the risk of judicial errors and the irreversible nature of executions, drawing attention to cases where innocence has been proven posthumously in other countries.
Political will is another hurdle. While President Joko Widodo’s administration faced intense scrutiny over executions in 2015, subsequent governments have maintained a de facto moratorium without committing to formal abolition. Analysts suggest that this middle-ground approach—sentencing without executing—may be a strategic compromise, allowing the state to appear tough on crime while avoiding international condemnation. However, this stance does little to address the fundamental ethical and legal questions surrounding the death penalty.
Ethical and Legal Dilemmas
The ethical debate over capital punishment in Indonesia is multifaceted. Opponents argue that it violates the right to life, a principle enshrined in international human rights frameworks such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They also point to systemic issues within Indonesia’s judicial system, including allegations of corruption and inadequate legal representation for defendants, which raise concerns about the fairness of death penalty trials. If such flaws exist, the risk of wrongful convictions becomes a profound moral failing.
Proponents, on the other hand, contend that the death penalty serves as a critical tool for deterrence and retribution, particularly in a country grappling with drug epidemics and violent crime. Government officials have often framed drug trafficking as a national security issue, justifying extreme measures to protect citizens. This perspective, however, is increasingly challenged by studies suggesting that the death penalty does not significantly deter crime more than life imprisonment.
From a legal standpoint, Indonesia’s continued use of the death penalty places it at odds with its commitments under international treaties. While the country has ratified certain human rights agreements, it has not signed the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which aims to abolish the death penalty. This gap underscores a broader tension between domestic policies and global norms, a tension that activists hope to bridge through sustained advocacy.
The Path Forward
As the global community moves toward abolishing the death penalty, Indonesia faces a critical juncture. The 85 death sentences handed down in 2024 are not merely statistics; they represent individual lives caught in a system that many argue is outdated and inhumane. The pause on executions since 2016 offers a glimmer of hope, suggesting that change, however incremental, may be possible. Yet, without legislative action to abolish or at least reform capital punishment, the specter of resumed executions looms large.
International pressure, coupled with regional examples like Malaysia, could serve as catalysts for change. Human rights organizations, both local and global, continue to call for dialogue between the Indonesian government, civil society, and the public to address the deep-seated issues surrounding the death penalty. Whether this dialogue will lead to tangible reform remains uncertain, but the stakes could not be higher.
As Indonesia navigates its place in a world increasingly opposed to capital punishment, the question persists: will it cling to punitive traditions, or will it embrace a justice system rooted in humanity and fairness? For the 85 individuals sentenced in 2024—and the many more on death row—the answer cannot come soon enough.
