The Right to Life of Humans

 By: Riva Julianto

The heated debate on human rights by countries worldwide, particularly in Indonesia, is merely empty rhetoric if the death penalty or the revocation of someone's right to life is still justified by the judicial system and ruling elites. Why is that?

When we talk about human rights, it must be associated with the right to life as the most fundamental right. This right is not a grant from the state or any other human. Humans cannot create their own life or existence through medical technology engineering. The Creator (read: God) is the one who gives us life and breath. Thus, this right can be considered the most fundamental and basic right that humanity possesses. The United States, as a powerhouse nation that glorifies human rights, still implements the death penalty in some of its states for criminal offenders.

However, upholding the right to life of a human is not as easy as we imagine. Dilemmatic issues stand before us. On one side, the desires and inclinations arising from conscience to abolish the death penalty clash with the consistency of upholding justice as fairly as possible on the other side. The power of institutionalising justice has submerged those desires and inclinations. Humans must accept the consequences of the development of civilisation if they do not want to regress from the increasingly pervasive modernisation in their lives.

We may not realise or perhaps consciously avoid saying it, but the truth is that the conception of justice that has been firmly held so far cannot be realised one hundred percent in everyday life. Justice has its own limitations when it reaches a point where human involvement is questioned. The symbol of justice represented by a balanced scale is not an inanimate object because the Goddess of Justice is blindfolded. Whether the scales of justice are balanced or not is determined by its actors (humans).

The genuine concept of justice cannot be concretised objectively and unequivocally in real life. If that happens, what occurs is the erosion of our humanity. The judicial system is nothing more than an institutionalisation of "revenge." A life debt is repaid with a life, and a blood debt is repaid with blood.

The task of the judicial system is not only to deliver the message of justice but also the spirit of humanity and human divinity. A punishment that revokes someone's right or the death penalty cannot be compared with laws, norms, and values that impoverish our tolerance for humanity. Furthermore, upon more critical examination, an unfair attitude within the judicial system becomes apparent. The death penalty as a genuine conception of justice upheld by the judicial system is no longer related to the issue of life. In this case, it means we have entered the realm of life and death where power is entirely in God's hands. Will we bring down and embody God's power into the reality of life? Have we forgotten that the Most Just is God Himself? Is taking away someone's right to life the last resort that humans have? Is a human life equivalent to a few kilograms of narcotics, political ideologies, or a life that has already irreversibly ended?

Does this make our scale of justice unbalanced? The answer is no. Achieving a balanced scale is the goal, and it is not a result that we must carry out purely. Of course, this only applies to cases of the death penalty. It is inhumane if we play with someone's life and their life-or-death situation in the judicial system.

If we are truly religious and follow religious teachings, then it is our duty to abide by them. In the teachings of all religions worldwide, none justifies murder and the destruction of all of God's creations on this earth. We are obliged to protect and preserve all of His creations, including humans as the highest beings.

This explicitly proves that the teachings of any religion do not approve of the revocation of someone's right to life by law, norms, and values that perpetually surround human life. Those facing firing squads, electric chairs, gas chambers, and various other forms of the death penalty are victims of the earthly judicial system created by humans.

Indeed, humans are wolves to each other (homo homini lupus), as philosopher Thomas Hobbes said to illustrate human aggressiveness that often exceeds that of animals in defending their lives, consciously or unconsciously. The implication is an action that is reasonable and common for humans. But we must not forget that humans are "rational beings" (anima rationale). It is the reason that distinguishes humans from other living creatures. With reason, we should be able to judge life more wisely when facing humanitarian issues.

There are many alternative ways to replace the death penalty. Ideas to replace the death penalty have been proposed and submitted. However, the most important thing is the awareness of the convicts and mental and spiritual education for them, so they do not repeat their actions.

Humans are creatures full of dynamics. They can change due to significant events in their lives. But they can also be stubborn in what they believe in. With a strong philosophy of life, humans will not be easily disturbed by situations that can lead to their misery and suffering. They become more realistic about their lives without disturbing the rights of others.