IMPACT OF REHABILITATION RIGHT’S NEGLIGENCE FOR PEOPLE WHO USE DRUGS DURING THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

IMPACT OF REHABILITATION RIGHT’S NEGLIGENCE FOR PEOPLE WHO USE DRUGS DURING THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
[CASE STUDY IN 5 CITIES] Page 1

1. Table of Content
2. Research Team
3. Background
4. Research Topic
5. Objectives
6. Methodology
a. Approaches
b. Location and Time of Research
c. Data Collection
d. Research Informants
e. Research Frailty and Limitation
i. Violence
ii. Investigation Under The Influence of Substances
iii. Manipulation
iv. Negotiation
v. The Switch
7. Impact of Right to Rehabilitation‟s Negligence During Legal
Proceedings
a. Psychological Impact
b. Social Impact
i. Stigma and Discrimination
ii. Wives File for Divorce
iii. Living in a Criminal Circle
iv. Double Stigma for Women
TABLE OF CONTENT

b. Economical Impact
i. Income and Employment Losses
ii. Expenses During The Legal Proceedings
c. Health Impact
i. Withdrawal Symptoms
ii. Drug Use Within The Prison Setting
iii. Lack of Access To Health Care
d. Educational Impact
8. Stakeholder‟s Point of View
9. Agreement On Viewing People Who Use Drugs As “Victims”
a. Department of Health and Department of Social Welfare
b. Police Force
c. Attorney
d. Judges
e. Penitentiary and Correctional Facility
f. Provincial/Municipal/District National Narcotics Board

Sally Atyasasmi
Lead Researcher
Communication Officer
Persaudaraan Korban NAPZA Indonesia (PKNI)
Edo Agustian
National Coordinator
Suhendro Sugiharto
Program Manager
Ardhany Suryadarma
National Policy Manager
Rumah Cemara
Anton M.Djajaprawira
Country Manager
Rumah Cemara
RESEARCH TEAM

• Persaudaraan Korban NAPZA Makassar (PKNM)
• Forum Korban NAPZA Jakarta (FORKON)
• AKSI NTB
• Rumah Cemara Bandung
• Jaringan Korban NAPZA Sumatera Utara (JARKON‟s)
• Claudia Stoicescu
• Octavery Kamil
• Arif Rahman Iryawan
• Sukma Ratri - Translator
• Bonang – Design & Layout
This report is published in the frame of “Asia Action on Harm
Reduction” Project. This poject is funded by Europian Union
in 2013 – 2015 and enables community advocate in
China,India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam to
advocate Harm Reduction.
Disclamer :‟The content of this publication are sole
responsibility of Rumah Cemara and do not necessarily
reflect opinion of the Europian Union‟
Collaborating Organizer
Assisting Team

Research Topic
In 2011, the estimation of people who use drugs in Indonesia is
approximately between 3.7 to 4.7 million or 2.2% of the total
population between 10 to 59 years old of age 1
. It was also
estimated that the level of drug use will increase within the few
years ahead. Projected result shows the prevalence of drug use will
increase up tto 2.6% in 2013.
One of the highlighted policies in tackling drug abuse issues is by
getting it through the Criminal Justice System. However, the
enormous resources invested in the efforts of law enforcing
throughout the world as well as for apprehension and
imprisonment of people who use drugs do not reflect a significant
reduction in drug use rate itself. Data released by the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) shows that worldwide
supply of illegal opiates derived substances such as heroin has
been soaring up more than 38% in the last few decades, from
1,000 metric tonnes in 1980 to more than 4,800 metric tonnes in
2010. This escalation is followed by the 79% decrease of heroin
price in Europe between 1990 and 2009. Similar fact released by
National Narcotics Board (NNB) in 2011 also shows tendency in the
increase of confiscation rate and narcotics cases disclosure. There
is also an increase in disclosure of narcotics cases from 17,326
cases in 2006 to 26,461 cases in 2010. The same thing goes for
1
BNN dan PPKUI 2011.
BACKGROUND

confiscation of primary substances such as marijuana, shabu,
ecstasy and heroin2
.
The escalation in narcotics issues at the national and global level
has made the government of Indonesia modify the Law on
Narcotics in response to the situation. The 2009 Law on Narcotics
No. 35 is the approved law that replaces the 1997 Law No. 22. This
new law on narcotics is aimed to prevent the tendency of victims-
widening quantitative and qualitative escalation, of which is
deemed will protect the society from the harm of drug abuse and
to eliminate black market of narcotics. In order to achieve these
goals, the law also regulates obligations of people who are addicted
to drugs and victims of drug abuse to be enrolled into medical and
social rehabilitation programs, as written in Article 54 and 55.
These articles oblige people who use drugs to do compulsory
reporting or family-assisted compulsory reporting to government
appointed primary health care services, hospital and/or medical
and social rehabilitation centre in order to get treatment and/or
medical and social rehabilitation care3
. The articles also mentioned
about the authorization for Judge in determining the sentence for
treatment and/or care through rehabilitation centre whether the
drug offender is proven guilty or not in conducting narcotics-related
criminal acts as written in Article 103. According to 2009 Law on
Narcotics No. 35, the government of Indonesia also released
several other derived regulations to convene the technical
implementation of rehabilitation for people who use drugs such as
2011 Government Regulation No. 25 on compulsory reporting for
people who use drugs. One of its articles carries the authorization
for investigators, prosecutors or judges for putting drug offenders
in the medical and social rehabilitation centres accordingly. This
2
BNN (2011). Jurnal Data 2011
3
Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2009 tentang Narkotika

decision is even strengthened by a Memo from the High Supreme
Court No. 4/2010 and No. 3/2011 as well as Memo of Attorney
General No. SE 002/A/JA/02/2013 with technical guidelines Memo
from Public Criminal Solicitor General No.B 601/E/EJP//02/2013.
These memos structurally oversee the placement of people who
use drugs in medical and/or social rehabilitation centres.
However, the implementation of this law is still not optimized.
Based on the Directorate General of Penitentiary Database System
in 2013 it was recorded that 26,906 inmates or 38.7% of the total
number of inmates in the prison are people who use drugs 4
.
Currently, Indonesian prisons have over capacity issue. According
to Directorate General of Penitentiary Database System there are
463 prisons in Indonesia, including 13 narcotics prisons that cater
total of 110,102 inmates. Data released by the Penitentiary
Database System in January 2014 shows prison‟s population reach
161,169 inmates, which means it is over capacity by 146%5
. This
condition causes serious health problems including the risk of HIV,
Tuberculosis, cholera and diarrheal spread; and any other illness
related to indecent sanitation system, malnutrition and
psychological-related sufferings6
.
Arrest and imprisonment of people who use drugs during legal
proceedings is deemed as adequate efforts by the law enforcement
to reduce the drug use rate. The different understanding between
criminal issue and health issue within the criminal justice system
affects greatly on the implementation efforts to tackle drug use
problems in Indonesia. From the health sector perspective, arrest
4
http://smslap.ditjenpas.go.id/public/krl/current/monthly/kanwil/all/year/2013/month/4
5
Sistem Database Pemasyarakatan (2014), available from :
http://smslap.ditjenpas.go.id/public/grl/current/monthly/kanwil/all/year/2014/month/
1
6
Open Society Foundation (2011). Petrial Detention and Health :
Unintended Consequences, Deadly Result

and imprisonment efforts push people who use drugs away from
health care and addiction recovery efforts; and even escalates the
risk of infectious diseases. Inmates have more health needs than
the general population does, mental health disorders, drug use,
chronic illnesses, infectious diseases and difabilities (ABS 2010;
Condon et al.2007b; Buttler et al.2011; Hockings et al.2002).
Mental health disorders and drug use are among the most
occurring problems for inmates, and only around a quarter of the
total number of inmates who does not suffer from such issues
(Friestad & AMP; Kjelsberg 2009; Smith & AMP; Trimboli 2010).
Criminalizations of people who use drugs also stand the chance to
increase crime rates. The lack of access to various resources, drug
use pattern and health gap can also amplify one another. A large
number of people who were sent to prison for drug offences have
now completed their sentences and go back to the society. With
inadequate and improper reintegration program, lack of resources
(education, employment opportunity, insurance, health treatment,
housing and right to vote) for people who use drugs, they are
facing the higher risks of going home ill and increase the burdens
for the family and society7
.
Thus, there is a question in this research that needs to be
answered on how negligence of right to rehabilitation for people
who use drugs during legal proceedings affects them.
In general, this research aims to assess the impact of right to
rehabilitation‟s negligence for people who use drugs during the
legal proceedings.
7
Iguchi, Y. Martin,PHD Jennifer A. London Nell Griffith Forge, PhD Laura
Hickman, PhD Terry Fain, MS, MA Kara Riehman, PhD. (2002) Elements of Well-
Being Affected by Criminalizing the Drug User. Public Health Report : Volumen 117,
Supplement 1

The objectives of this research are:
a. To identify experiences of people who use drugs/victims of
drug abuse during the legal proceedings.
b. To identify psychological, social, economical and health
impact on people who use drugs during the legal proceedings
and after the verdict.
c. To identify stakeholder‟s points of view in relation to the
impact of criminalization of people who use drugs in the legal
proceedings.
This research is a qualitative research with phenomenological
approach as the basis of theory. The approach assesses human
experience via people who are directly involved or experienced the
event. This experience is called life experience. This
phenomenology study aims to describe the meaning of experience
of each subject (Donalek, 2004). Especially for this research, it
aims to get the in-depth impact of right to rehabilitation‟s
negligence based on the experience of people who use drugs
during the legal proceedings.
The research was conducted in 5 provinces in Indonesia, taking 1
municipal/district per province which is Medan (North Sumatra),
DKI Jakarta, Bandung (West Java), Makassar (South Sulawesi),
Mataram (West Nusa Tenggara). Decision to determine which
Objectives
METHODOLOGY
Approaches
Location and Time of Research

location in city/municipal is based on the 3 municipals/districts
within the area covered as per the Memo from Public Criminal
Solicitor General No.B 601/E/EJP//02/2013 while 2 other cities are
selected because they are excluded from the memo as comparison.
Data collection method for this research is using the qualitative
approaches which are Focused Group Discussion (FGD) and in-
depth interview. The instruments used for data collection is the
guidelines on Focused Group Discussion (FGD) and in-depth
interview.
Selection of informants as resource people for data collection in
this research is based on the knowledge around research related
issues, possession of data and willingness to share full and
accurate information. Research informants/respondents consist of:
a. People who use drugs - inmates in prison or penitentiary –
who are under narcotics case and ex-inmates with narcotics
case background arrested between January 2010 and the
time of research.
b. Immediate circle of people who use drugs and victims of drug
abuse, whom are family/relative/spouse/partner/friend/co-
worker of people who use drugs and ex-inmates with
narcotics case background.
c. Stakeholders in narcotics issue – people who have authority
in the justice system (investigator, prosecutor and judge),
people with interest in establishing medical and/social
rehabilitation service centres (representatives of: Provincial
Research Informants
Data Collection

National Narcotics Board, Municipal National Narcotics Board,
Basic Service/Narcotics Division of
Provincial/District/Municipal Department of Health, Narcotics
Bureau of Provincial/District/Municipal Department of Social,
Chief of local penitentiary and/or correctional facility).
Research Limitation:
1. During the Focused Group Discussion in Tanjung Gusta
Penitentiary, Medan, respondents have difficulties to express
their opinion due to several facility staff pacing back and
forth around the discussion area.
2. Some stakeholders who participate in the in-depth interview
are not familiar with the issue and join the interview based
on the instruction from their superiors.
Experience of People Who Use Drugs During Legal
Proceedings
These experiences are taken for data collection process using
Focused Group Discussion (FDG) and in-depth interview methods
involving several people who use drugs in legal proceedings who
are inmates or ex-inmates as resource people. During the FGD and
in-depth interview processes, the research team is trying to
capture the experiences of people who use drugs who did not get
access to rehabilitation when facing the legal proceedings.
Research Frailty and Limitation

Violence is the fact found in this study based on the experience
revealed by the respondents. From the experience of respondents,
during the legal proceedings violence often happened and
conducted by law enforcement officers, in this regards the
members of police force during the arrest and investigation.
“....I was strangled, forced to sit and then my feet were
stomped, he wanted to know where did I keep the evidence.”
– said a male drug user informant, Jakarta.
Violence is not only happened to male drug users, in several cases
it also happened to female drug users. This was revealed from
information given by informants for this study. Investigators are
not hesitant to hit and slap female drug users to get confession and
information. Informants also admit that during arrest and search,
female drug users are stripped to naked by male police officer in
order to find evidence suspected to be affixed to the body. This is a
form of procedural infringement of which regulated in Article 37 of
1981 Criminal Procedure Law No. 8: “body search encompasses
body cavity inspection for female should be conducted by female
officer.”
The use of violence by law enforcement officers during criminal law
enforcement process seems to be entrenched. This also shown in
the previous study documented by Kontras between July 2005 and
June 2006 where some cases is resulting in death (Mimbar Hukum,
2011). Facts in previous study also show similar tendency, among
more than ten million inmates (including pre-trial and post-verdict
residence) worldwide, the ones held for pre-trial are among the
most vulnerable to violence (Roy Walmsley at Open Society
Foundation, 2010). Pre-trial residence are fully controlled under the
arresting authorities, many of them consider violence is the fastest
Violence

way to get information or confession; and the easiest way to
practice physical and mental control over the residences.
Unfortunately, in many systems, the time when incentive for police
officers to conduct violence is maximum usually coincides with the
time when supervision is minimum. Those coming from the lowest
economical sector, living in poverty and most unfortunate are the
most susceptible ones (Manfred Nowak, 2009).
Violent conducts happened during the investigation period is not in
accordance with Article 117 of 1981 Law on Criminal Procedure No.
8, “confession of suspect or witness to the investigator should be
given without any kind of pressures and/or from anyone.”
Respondents admit that most of them went through the
investigation process, from the beginning all the way to the signing
of the police report, under the influence of substances. Some of
them were arrested while using drugs or when about to do the
transactions, thus, they undergo the investigation process while
still high or under heavy influence of substances. On top of that,
the enormous length of investigation process has often eventually
takes them to the withdrawal phase and there is no health care
offered for this condition. This circumstance has impacts on
respondents in providing information during the investigation
period due to their difficulties to focus and think clearly.
“That moment, I did not realize that I was arrested. Because
I was still under the influence (of substances), so I was
happy” – female inmate, Makassar.
“When the Police Investigation Report was done, I saw there
were so many articles. Too many, so that I just signed it
Investigation Under The Influence of Substances

without reading them all... I was taking a lot (of pills)
anyway...” – female inmate, Bandung
“When I went through the investigation, I couldn‟t take it. It
was already 1 AM in the morning. My investigation went from
3 PM in the afternoon until 1 AM in the morning and I
thought about a lot of thing and got depressed so I got ill.
The second time I got ill because of withdrawal...” – female
inmate, West Nusa Tenggara.
This is against the official procedure of Police Investigation Report
where a person being investigated should be asked at the
beginning of the process whether he/she is physically and mentally
healthy, not under any pressures and ready to provide correct
information. On the other hand, this kind of situation is also
allowed due to lack of knowledge from people who use drugs in
regards of their rights. Most of them are unaware of Article 57 of
1981 Law on Criminal Procedure No. 8, “Suspect or defendant
subject to detention has the rights to contact and visitation from
personal medical doctor for his/her health interest, whether it is
related or not to the proceedings.”
Manipulation means embezzlement or misappropriation. According
to Wikipedia, manipulation is a process of engineering by adding,
concealing, removing, omitting or blurring some or all of the
realness, facts or history conducted by a value designing system.
What most important is that there is a process in place to implant
ideas, attitudes, mindset, behaviour and belief. The easiest legal
proceedings engineering to find in Indonesian justice system is
actually not only in the area of narcotics, but the largest crack that
enables law enforcement officers to apply such manipulation is
Manipulation

within this field. One of the manipulations or engineering done by
the law enforcement officers in narcotics cases is the laboratory
test results, which is utilized as valid evidence for the case. Lab
test result is deemed as valid evidence when issued by authorized
institution as per the Criminal Procedure Law. But in reality,
respondents must pay certain amount of money to get that valid
evidence.
“When (before) I was arrested, I used some (drugs). That
morning I also used some after I woke up... I even used
every day... the needle they found was still wet... When I
underwent the urine test at the police station my result was
negative. But if I wanted it to be positive, I could just
arrange some money with the officer, and they will switch it
to positive.” – male inmate, Makassar.
Based on the information from respondents, during the legal
proceedings whether along the investigation period or during the
trial, there is negotiation process or also known as “buying-selling”
by law enforcement officers. The goal is to influence the sentence.
The form of negotiation is varied such as:
 Revise the content of Police Investigation Report and change
the articles where domination of criminalization of people
who use drugs is applied by law enforcement officer. Most
articles applied to people who use drugs are Article 111, 112,
114 which tend to criminalize users. While Article 127, which
tends to chance of rehabilitation, is an expensive commodity
to get.
 Reduce the quantity of evidence. Since the Supreme Court
memo No. 04/2010 convenes the maximum limit of quantity
Negotiation

for substance possession as evidence and condition for
rehabilitation, this has also become a crack for negotiation
where the quantity can be reduced to fit the criteria of rehab
or to reduce length of imprisonment.
 Reduce length of sentence in prosecution and verdict. The
implementation of 2009 Narcotics Law No. 35 applies at least
4 years of imprisonment for people who use drugs. But the
policy to send people who use drugs to rehab centre, using
their addiction to substance as consideration, has become a
crack for negotiation to ease the prosecution and verdict.
“I was offered to pay 85, I could walk out free right away...” –
male inmate, Makassar
“The first time I got arrested, I was negotiated to pay 30 million
86 (police code for „understand‟ or „understood‟, but often also
interpreted as „bribe‟ or „payment‟) on the spot.” – male ex-
inmate, Medan.
“My grandpa was there at that time and he said to put forward
one of the evidences only so I learned my lessons. He didn‟t
want to let me free, let it be my lesson but he worked it out to
omit some articles. So, there was no money involved, but he
actually helped me even without getting me out. That was
because he is in the police force.” – male ex-inmate, Medan.
“At that time, my family had to pay 15 million so I got only 2
years and 6 months.” – male inmate, Makassar.
“To change the Police Investigation Report, I had to pay 8
million at that time. And I paid the prosecutor 17.5 million.” –
female ex-inmate, Makassar.
“It took me 5 months and 26 days to get transferred from the
police station‟s detention cell to the prison. I actually got 4

years and 2 months, but I walked out free. Not because I didn‟t
have evidence on hands, but because I paid 40 millions. That
was why...” – female ex-inmate, Makassar.
“The Switch” is the term used among people who use drugs during
the legal proceedings. It is basically when one is arrested and told
that he/she can walk free as long as he/she give up other name for
the switch or for his/her replacement. Many of respondents admit
that when they got arrested they were offered to give up their
friend in order to switch or replace them. However, this also does
not successfully happen at all time. Sometimes, even a name has
been given up and the person is arrested, the informants are still
being held by the police.
“... so, when I was arrested, I was tempted to give up a
friend or a dealer to let myself free. At that time, I didn‟t say
a thing so, they took me to the police station right away and
I was electrocuted.” – male inmate, Makassar.
“... they want The Switch. That night, he (the police officer)
got my mobile phone and found my transaction with a friend.
If I got this (guy), i will let you out. But he didn‟t. He got us
both.” – female inmate, Makassar.
Respondents here informed that they are also victims of The
Switch. Some of them do not even posses evidence or have any
substances on hands at the time of the arrest. The only evidences
presented against them are the phone conversations and their
previously arrested friends‟ confessions.
The Switch

Impact of Right to Rehabilitation’s Negligence During Legal
Proceedings
Based on the information revealed by respondents during the FGD
process and in-depth interview, all of them feel under a lot of
pressure or stressed due to being separated from the family and
concerned about their family well-being. Female respondents are
under a lot of pressures because they had to leave their young
children who still need schooling and meals. Different to the
female, male respondents are under a lot of stress not only
because they had to leave their family, but some of them also got
a divorce request from their wives.
“(I was) so stressed because I was separated from my
family, especially my children...” – female inmate, Bandung.
“Of course I was stressed... I have many young children.
Some of them hadn‟t eaten when I was taken. Three are still
in university, the youngest one was only a little bit older than
2 years old. My husband was also already „inside‟ (the
prison). No bread-winner. Where did they get (the money) to
eat?” – female inmate, Makassar.
“So, I was arrested and the first glitch was my wife filed for a
divorce. That was it. Things started to come up after that, so
we (inmates) become stressed, someone even committed
suicide...” – male inmate, Bandung.
Psychological pressure not only happens at the time of arrest and
during the sentence period. It is even there when their serving
time in prison is coming to an end. They are worried that by the
time they go back to the society, they cannot manage the urge to
Psychological Impact

use again especially when they are surrounded by their friends who
are still using drugs.
“If I got out now and I go back to the environment and
friends who are still using (drugs)... will I be strong enough?
I used to be a drug addict, the urge will be there, that is why
I want to go to rehab...” – female inmate, West Nusa
Tenggara.
In this regard, respondents also revealed that there is a need of
rehabilitation to fulfil. The need they did not get during their prison
time.
 Stigma and Discrimination
During the legal proceedings, respondents experience various
social impacts. It may be when they are serving their prison time
or when it has been completed and reintegrated in the society.
During the FGD process and in-depth interview, they admit that
during the legal proceedings they have lost a lot of trust from the
family and isolated from the society.
“I was evicted from my society and... my wife divorced
me...” – male ex-inmate, Jakarta.
“I don‟t know where to go after I get out...” – female inmate,
Medan.
Social impacts are not only experienced by respondents undergoing
legal proceedings, but also by their family. Children are isolated
because their parents are in prison.
Social Impact

“(It is) a family loss, children are sad and mocked because their
father is in prison.” – male inmate, Medan.
 Wives File for Divorce
Interesting findings in this study is that one of the social impacts
experienced by male respondents is getting a divorce.
“If my wife didn‟t file a divorce, where would she get her
needs from? I cannot blame her. For me, I get 5 years
sentence and my wife wanted a divorce, I think that is
okay...” – male inmate, Bandung.
 Living In a Criminal Circle
Social environment during the serving the sentence in prison
becomes the arena to socialize among inmates. The facility does
not provide separate area for inmates who use drugs, dealers
and/or producers. In several prisons and correctional facilities with
over capacity problems inmates with drug offences background are
placed together with other regular crimes inmates. During the FGD
process and in-depth interview respondents revealed that along the
legal proceedings they learn a lot about other crimes and get to
know more of drug dealers‟ network, even bigger ones.
“I got in for narcotics case, and when I got out I had more
knowledge on this (drug-related) crime. That socialization
inside (the prison) is not a good education. There is no lesson
for us...”
 Double Stigma for Women
For female drug users, layered stigma from the society haunts
them. As we are all aware, the society in Indonesia demands
women to be „good‟ normatively. Thus, female drug users are
facing layered stigma as female inmates and as female drug users.

“The society deemed us negatively once we get out from the
prison, they said we will never changed... especially as a
woman who uses drugs...” – female ex-inmate, Makassar.
“I am so stressed... My husband is inside the prison too.
When I was arrested, he was already in there for a year and
4 months. He was asking me to deliver this to his friend.” –
female inmate, Makassar.
 Income and Employment Losses
Economical impacts experienced by people who use drugs during
the legal proceedings are mostly income and employment losses.
As per the data released by National Narcotics Board in 2011,
people who use drugs in Indonesia is ranging from 10 years old up
to 59 years old (NNB, 2011), of which people who are included in
that range are in their productive stage to work. From the
information gathered in this study, respondents lost their
employment from the time they got arrested and during legal
proceedings. Several respondents admit during the FGD process
that they are the main bread-winner in the family. Some of them
are also entrepreneurs, having their own small businesses that
went to bankruptcy and the opportunity to start over once they are
released is getting slimmer.
Legal proceedings underwent by respondents not only risking their
employment, but also facing long term unemployment due to
difficulties in finding new jobs after they got released.
“I have just applied for a new job... there were tests too, but
they found out that I am a drug addict, and I got rejected....”
– male ex-inmate, Makassar.
Economical Impact

“After I got released from the prison, it is so difficult to find a
good job.” – female ex-inmate, Makassar.
Stigma as ex-inmates, added by loss of opportunity and access to
education is limiting the income for ex-inmates for the rest of their
lives.
“I was working in a printing company and then quit. My
children has no support, no one pays for the rent. My wife
has to bear it all. There are so many economical burdens and
I also cannot send (some money) to my wife....” – male
inmate, Jakarta.
Economical impacts are not only experienced by drug users who
are going through legal proceedings but also by their families. This
has been admitted by respondents that since they went through
the legal proceedings they depend fully to their families because
they are unemployed. Family has to bear the burden of various
expenses needed by their family member who is convicted such as
for meals, cigarette allowance and other incidental expenses. On
top of that, the family still have to find income to meet some ends.
In several cases, wives and even children must find employment to
cover the loss of income.
Expenses During The Legal Proceedings
In addition to losing their employment, respondents or their
families must struggle to cover the legal expenses, bribes for
corrupted law enforcement officers and various other expenses
incurred the legal proceedings. Even when they get to the stage of
serving the sentence, their basic needs – which are supposed to be
covered by the state – such as decent food, water and other needs
still have to be paid and covered by them for as long as they are in
the facility. These expenses, of course, have automatically become

the responsibilities of their family considering the inmates are
undergoing the legal proceedings and have no income. This
includes transport expenses for visitation, food allowance, cigarette
allowance and other personal incidental needs, often they also
have to pay bribes for the wardens.
 Withdrawal Symptoms
The consequences of drug use is that it can cause physical
dependency, which means a person will be depending on certain
substance and as time goes by there will be some increase in
dosage to get the same effect. When a person stops using, the
body needs time to recover and this will cause withdrawal
symptoms such as muscle-aches, stomach cramps nausea,
vomiting and diarrhoea. These conditions need treatment and
medical supports (American Accreditation Health Care Commission,
2012). When drug users are arrested and undergo legal
proceedings, some of them are active users by the time of
apprehension and at the beginning of the legal process which is the
investigation at the police station. Many of them experienced
withdrawal symptoms and received no medical or addiction
treatment.
“I stopped (using) at the police station just by holding on. I
just embrace the withdrawal for more than a month there to
resist methadone.” – male inmate, Medan
“When the withdrawal came... it felt like my bones are
broken... felt like really crushed to pieces... I felt it for about
2 weeks and I just lay down all the time.” – female inmate,
West Nusa Tenggara.
Health Impact

At the investigation stage, the police force does not have drug
addiction treatment facility to anticipate withdrawal symptoms.
Respondents confessed that they did not get any health care and
treatment such as medication to reduce the recurring pain.
However, some of them have enough money to pay for their own
medication.
This fact is not aligned with the drug addiction treatment principles
compiled by World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations
Office on Drug and Crime (UNODC) in 2008 where treatment for
people with drug addiction issues in the justice system must cover
treatment as an alternative of detention and provision of drug
addiction treatment during detention period is non-negotiable. In
Indonesia, there is a Government Regulation No. 25/2011 on
Implementation of Compulsory Reporting for People Who Use
Drugs in which Article 13 Subsection (3) regulates that people who
use drugs undergoing legal proceedings can be placed in medical
and/or social rehabilitation centres and the authorization for this is
regulated in Article 13 Subsection (4) which is authorized by
investigator, prosecutor or judge, accordingly to the level of
investigation and after recommended by the Medical Team.
 Drug Use Within The Prison Settings
With no care or treatment for addiction during the detention period
by the police force, the addiction issues become out of hands.
Thus, when respondents finally get into the correctional facility or
penitentiary they start to use again. For people who inject drugs,
unavailability of sterile syringes as one of harm reduction services
within the prison setting has made them „rent‟ syringes illegally.
They pay certain amount of money to get the turn to use a syringe.
The risks among people who inject drugs are closely related to the

spread of HIV, Hepatitis B and C, all are infectious through using
one syringe communally. For non-injecting drug users, the HIV
infection is still lurking around the corner through escalated high
risk sexual conducts (WHO & UNOADC, 2009).
“To use (drugs) at the police station is still viable. After we
got arrested, if we want to use (drugs) at the station, we can
buy it from the police officers.” – male inmate, Bandung.
“... it‟s all about the money. Even to get any kind of drugs
inside (the prison) is a lot easier, and the quantity is larger
too, but we have to rent the syringe from other people...” –
ex-inmate, Bandung.
“There is something we call „A syringe for all‟. It means one
syringe could be used by 99 people... Sometimes we get to
borrow it from a friend, sometimes we have to rent it for ten
thousand (USD1)... Dull needle will be sharpened using
sandpaper.” – male inmate, Makassar.
Lack of treatment and care, also the loss of opportunity to get
treatment at the rehab centre during the legal proceedings triggers
drug use within the prison setting which can continue after they are
released. In some cases, inmates who use drugs will experience
the withdrawal symptoms after the completed their serving time
due to intense drug use when they were detained. This will result
on continuity in drug use after released.
“... (I started to use drugs again) as soon as I got released,
because at the time (when I was released) I was already
having the withdrawal symptoms...” – male ex-inmate,
Bandung.

“The minute I got my freedom, as a user, my automatic
response was to have the suggestive urge to use again. I still
do once in a while...” – female ex-inmate, Bandung.
 Lack of Access to Health Care
Availability of health care provided for inmates is severely limited.
The number of human resources such as doctors and other medical
staff is not compatible with the number of inmates in the facility.
On top of that, other facilities and medical supplies are also very
limited and only first aid kit supplies are available.
Hygiene and sanitation are also main factors that cause high rate
of skin diseases and diarrhoea among the inmates. These two
factors related to skin diseases and diarrhoea problems are the
taking the top of the list of complaints from the inmates (Agsa,
2012).
“Clinic is only available for first aid only. Referrals for more serious
illnesses are slow and often put on hold. If the family comes to
help with the arrangement, then they will quickly refer the inmate
to RSKO or Kramat Jati Hospital. But if the family doesn‟t get
involved, they will leave the patient until the condition is critical
before they refer to the hospital. I saw somebody and some drug
user inmates died as soon as referred. Every day there is at least 2
people.” – male inmate, Jakarta.
“Cough syrup, diarrhoea medicines, and headache tablets.
That is all and nothing more that we can find here (in the
prison). Especially in a prison like this, it is not healthy. Skin
diseases are coming from the water we have here...” – male
inmate, Medan.

“In the facility we have only one kind of medicine. For
headache, trapped wind, diarrhoea we get either CTM or
Ampisilin. That is it.” – ex-inmate, West Nusa Tenggara.
In the case of young drug users who have to undergo legal
proceedings, automatically their education is hampered. They have
to drop out of school or university to follow the legal proceedings,
which will have a great negative impact on their employment
opportunity once they are released. The situation compounds them
in getting better employment opportunity and income for the rest
of their lives. They even cannot go back and continue their
education after they are released due to lack of self-esteem and
feeling embarrassed as ex-inmates. On top of that, they feel that
by the time they are released they are already too old to go back
to school.
“I dropped out of school. If only I could get into rehab, I
probably will continue my education and enjoy my teenage
years.” – female inmate, Jakarta.
“At that time I was still in grade 11 going on grade 12. And
then I was arrested and by the time I was released, I
discontinued my education...” – male ex-inmate, Medan.
Not only young people who use drugs lose education opportunities
during their legal proceedings, children of people who use drugs
are also being put in the situation where they have to discontinue
their education. Children whose parents are undergoing legal
proceedings often do not have the funds to continue their
education. In some cases, these children are forced to take the role
Educational Impact

of bread-winners to fulfil their basic needs and often to support
other family members too.
“I have 6 children... Two of them are still in school.” – male
inmate, Medan.
“It is so bad... everything, all of our possessions are gone...
My second son had to drop out of school when he was in
grade 11.” – male inmate, West Nusa Tenggara.
Interesting facts related to educational impact that have been one
of the findings in this study is that respondents claim during the
legal proceedings, especially when they are in the facility, some of
them admit that they get better religious education.
“Alhamdulillah, I started as a person who couldn‟t read Al-
Qur‟an, now I can...” – male inmate, Bandung.
“My focus is to my shalat and Al-Qur‟an reading. There (in
the prison), I learn to read Al-Qur‟an and nutfah, shalat. I
completed reading the whole book for three times.” – male
inmate, West Nusa Tenggara.
To assess the stakeholder‟s point of view in relations to impact of
criminalization on people who use drugs during the legal
proceedings, data is collected through conducting in-depth
interview with stakeholders. Participants are members of law
enforcement institutions such as Police Force, Judiciary and Judges
together with other institutions such as municipal/district
Penitentiary and/or Correctional Facility, Department of Health,
Department of Social Welfare and National Narcotics Board.
Stakeholder’s Point of View

The way stakeholders view people who use drugs is not different to
one another. All of them view people who use drugs as “victims”
whom should be getting the right to rehabilitation.
Stakeholders from Department of Health and Department of Social
Welfare view people who use drugs who do not get their right to
rehabilitation during legal proceedings is the same as them not
getting what they need. And the impact will be worse because
when they need treatment for recovery but cannot access it, the
efforts to eradicate drugs will be harder due to low number of
people who use drugs accessing treatment. Other wider impact will
be the increased number of new users, especially young ones.
Youth is at risk population. They are adventurous and eager to try
new things and possibly will try to use or involved in drug abuse.
Stakeholders from Department of Health and Department of Social
Welfare express that access to treatment in rehabilitation centre is
the right of people who use drugs and must be tailored accordingly
to their needs. However, the implementation currently is only
accessible to certain group of people. For instance, celebrities can
easily get treatment at a rehab centre and somehow get the
privilege in accessing the service while the general population does
not and ends up in prison instead. In this regard, drug issue is
heavily related to the issue of poverty. This fact is revealed by
Drugs and HIV/AIDS Bureau that people who live below the
poverty line are often being abused, used and lured into drug
trafficking network and recruited as couriers, dealers or
wholesalers.
The stakeholders express that the state should provide maximum
shelter which is coming from systemic and policy perspective so
there will be lesser victims of drugs and narcotics. In this regards,
Agreement on Viewing People Who Use Drugs as “Victims”

a significant role from local government is crucial to put great
efforts in promoting the birth of adequate and appropriate
rehabilitation centres tailored accordingly to the needs of people
who use drugs.
The opportunity for people who use drugs who undergo legal
proceedings to get their right to rehabilitation needs good inter-
institution governance and coordination, especially between law
enforcement institution and other related institutions. The support
from local government is also important to ensure the ideal
realization of the service accordingly to the needs of people who
use drugs and to prepare their reintegration to the society. An
excellent cross-sectoral collaboration is necessary in order to
succeed the reintegration program. For instance, health sector
provides accessible health services; human resources sector
provides employment opportunity, religious strengthening aspect,
etc. All of those are things needed for reintegration of people who
use drugs.
During the interview with the Police Force, stakeholders from this
institution address that from their point of view, people who use
drugs are victims who need special treatment to recover
effectively. Thus, people who use drugs are supposed to be sent to
rehabilitation centres. But to get there, they strongly feel it has to
follow accordingly to the justice system in Indonesia and has to
refer to the legal formality which is proven through assessment
that one fits the criteria of the legal formal conditions. This
assessment should refer to the result that shows one is properly
declared as a drug user who needs rehab treatment.
Article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code mentioned that the
furthest placement for someone should function as a place for
treatment. The 1981 Police Regulation No. 8 explains that in 2009

Law on Narcotics No. 35 contains the elaboration on people who
use drugs who report themselves must be given access to
rehabilitation centres and not criminalized. However, should the
person then apprehended and found to possess a prove of
compulsory report, prove of access to rehabilitation service and
possession of substance below the standard of allowance regulated
in Memo of High Supreme Court (SEMA) No. 04/2010, all of the
documents should be submitted to the attorney for further
prosecution process and the court will decide whether or not the
person fits for rehab. The Police Force is not authorized to decide.
Instead, they have a separate case administration procedure and
so does the attorney and court. Police cannot decide on one‟s rehab
placement because there is no guarantee that the suspect will be
available for further or next investigations. Police investigator
cannot place a suspect who uses drugs in rehab facility because
that will be deemed as risking the investigation process and put it
on hold. For example, if the suspect flees, the police force will be
institutionally responsible for the event and will be sanctioned.
Thus, referring to the 2011 Government Regulation No. 25 where
placement in rehab can be done during the police investigation,
judiciary and court processes, the infrastructure needs to be fully
prepared by appointing who will be held accountable should the
suspect is accessing rehab facility during the legal proceedings.
The Police Force expresses that referring to the mandate of Law on
Narcotics, suspects who use drugs have the right to rehabilitation
with certain criteria and conditions such as caught red-handed
using drugs, possession of substance under the standard allowance
regulated in Memo of High Supreme Court (SEMA) No. 04/2010,
drug positive lab test result, letter from experts such as doctor and
psychiatrist obtained through a medical assessment process
confirming that he/she is a drug user who needs rehab treatment.

In that regard, the police force expects that the policy in place
should be clarified and reinforced in a higher regulation than just
merely a Memo of High Supreme Court (SEMA) which is in the form
of law or regulation on rehabilitation of people who use drugs
approved by the Parliament. Apart from that, limitation of rehab
facility in quantity, quality and capacity is also another issue. So,
when we are talking about treatment issue for people who use
drugs, rehab centres must be securely available. If it is not, where
will they be sent to during the legal proceedings?
The impact of people who use drugs not getting access to
rehabilitation facility during their legal proceedings according to
stakeholders from the judiciary is undeniably significant. The fact
that several inmates in the penitentiary or correctional facility are
found still using drugs is a proof that putting people who use drugs
in such environment is clearly not the best decision. They should
be admitted to state‟s rehab facility such as the one owned by
National Narcotics Board which is adequate, well-capacitated and
professionally run.
Apart from that, putting people who use drugs in prison instead of
rehab centres increases the prison‟s over-capacity issue. This issue
also has a negative impact for people who use drugs that are
supposed to be in rehab centres. Putting them in the prison setting
does not have positive influence because they will socialize with
dealers, producers and other criminals.
Institutionally, the attorney or judiciary who handles the narcotics
cases will refer to the 2009 Law on Narcotics No. 35 and the 2011
Government Regulation No. 25, Memo of High Supreme Court
(SEMA) No. 04/2010 and Memo of Attorney General (SEJA) No. SE-
002/A/JA/02/2013 based on these referrals, should a person who

uses drugs fits the criteria to be admitted to a rehab facility, the
attorney will issue the order.
According to the attorney, in narcotics cases we should oversee
everything comprehensively and not partially. So, it should not
regarded as keeping, possessing, purchasing substances because if
we do so, people who use drugs will fit the Article 112 and 114 of
2009 Law on Narcotics No. 35. But the attorney and judiciary also
have to assess the goals, whether the substance is for personal use
only, for delivery or for sale. Those facts need to be viewed
comprehensively.
Prosecution by the attorney is the second phase with expectation
that assessment by doctor has been done during the investigation
phase by the police to determine whether the person needs
addiction treatment or not. This assessment result will then be
used by the prosecutor for further legal proceedings.
However, the attorney also notes that in the narcotics cases it is
necessary to be meticulous and selective so this policy on rehab is
not abused by dealers who pretend to be users. The referral is
geared towards Memo of Attorney General (SEJA) No. SE-
002/A/JA/02/2013. The highest policy, for instance, is at the level
of law and cannot accommodate in details, hence there is a derived
regulation such as Memo of Attorney General (SEJA) to oversee
more meticulously on the technical implementation of the
rehabilitation mandated by the law.
The attorney also expects the implementation of rehabilitation can
be applied holistically especially for arrested people who use drugs
coming from families living below the poverty line and cannot
obtain access to doctor‟s assessment. This should be a mandatory
aspect for officers to provide such service. This also needs serious
commitment from the government in order to implement it

effectively. Other challenge is that the fact not all province has
rehab facility.
Stakeholders from law enforcement of narcotics, which is the
judges, revealed that the impact of inaccessible rehabilitation
service for people who use drugs undergoing legal proceedings
causes a lot of death or other unhealthy impact for the incoming
generations.
According to the judge who participates as a resource person in
this study, during the legal proceedings of narcotics cases, the
judge is authorized to decide on the case or call a verdict against
the defendant. The challenge in executing rehab sentence for
people who use drugs is the organization of the strategy on the
indictment. According to 2009 Law on Narcotics No. 35, rehab
sentence can be applied to people who fit the category as drug
user, victim of drug abuse and drug addict. But almost all of the
indictment submitted to the court hardly moving towards using. It
always followed by other articles such as possessing, keeping and
carrying as in Article 111, 112 and 114.
Article 111 Subsection (1) Law on Narcotics: “Anyone who
unrightfully or against the law plants, cultivates, possesses,
keeps, controls or provides narcotics substances Group I in
the form of plant, will be convicted with imprisonment
minimum of 4 (four) years and maximum of 12 (twelve)
years and fined minimum Rp. 800,000,000.00 (eight hundred
millions) and maximum Rp. 8,000,000,000.00 (eight
billions).”
The difference with Article 112 Subsection (1) Law on
narcotics is in the form of plant or non-plant: “Anyone who
unrightfully or against the law plants, cultivates, possesses,
keeps, controls or provides narcotics substances Group I in

the form of non-plant, will be convicted with imprisonment
minimum of 4 (four) years and maximum of 12 (twelve)
years and fined minimum Rp. 800,000,000.00 (eight hundred
millions) and maximum Rp. 8,000,000,000.00 (eight
billions).”
And then, for Article 114 Subsection (1) Law on Narcotics
mentioned that “Anyone who unrightfully or against the law
offers to sell, sells, purchases, receives, becomes a
middleman for a sale, trades or hands over narcotics
substances Group I, will be convicted with life imprisonment
or minimum of 5 (five) years and maximum of 20 (twenty)
years and fined minimum Rp. 1,000,000,000.00 (one billion)
and maximum Rp. 10,000,000,000.00 (ten billions)”
Within the authority of the judge in examining the cases and the
scope of case based on the indictment letter issued by the
prosecutor, if the organization of indictment letter is accompanied
by facts attached during the trial, the indictment is in the form of
primary subsidiary, thus, the primary indictment must be proven
before moving to the subsidiary one. Once the primary indictment
is proven, the subsidiary indictment does not need to be proven. In
many narcotics cases, the content of indictment letter includes
Article 112 and 114 as primary articles, while article 127 is the
subsidiary one. So, when the primary Articles 111, 112 and 114 is
fulfilled, Article 127 needs no further verification.
Article 127 Law on Narcotics: “Anyone abuses (a) Narcotics
substances Group I for personal use will be convicted with
imprisonment maximum of 4 (four) years; (b) Narcotics
substances Group II for personal use will be convicted with
imprisonment maximum of 2 (two) years; and (c) Narcotics

substances Group III for personal use will be convicted with
imprisonment maximum of 1 (one) year.”
That Article is a unity with Article 127 Subsection (2) Law on
Narcotics in which addresses that in deciding a case as per
Subsection (1), the judge is obliged to carefully examine the
conditions mentioned in Article 54, 55 and 103 Law on Narcotics.
Those Articles obliges and guides the judge in admitting people
who use drugs in medical and social rehabilitation facility. Thus, by
not verifying Article 127 as primary article in the indictment letter,
narrows the chance for people who use drugs to be admitted to
rehab centres.
The judges expect prosecutors can provide alternate indictment
letter. Alternate form of indictment letter gives the freedom to the
judges in considering the most relevant verdict accordingly to the
facts revealed during the trial.
Apart from that, the judges also expect that right from the
beginning of the investigation process, medical assessment is
carried out by specialists to categorized whether one is a person
who use drugs that needs rehabilitation treatment or not. If he/she
is qualified as a patient and fits the criteria of drug addict and
victim of drug abuse, then the assessment result and medical
record will be submitted as evidence for the judges as referral for
admission to rehab facility.
Judges also revealed that rehab sentencing has been introduced to
people who use drugs, but what happened was lack of assessment
on people who use drugs. Even though the possession is below the
standard of allowance as per Memo of High Supreme Court (SEMA)
No. 04/2010 on placement of people who use drugs, drug addicts
and victims of drug abuse in medical and social rehabilitation
centres.

Without medical assessment, for instance, there is a doctor‟s letter
but no assessment, the condition for rehab is deemed as
unfulfilled. The judges express that this condition should be
considered cumulatively, not just by doctor‟s letter.
On top of that, the judges also expect the law will be socialized
properly to the society and government must be able to
differentiate between people who use drugs and criminals.
The result of in-depth interview done with the stakeholders from
Penitentiary and Correctional Facility revealed that some
information on the point of view these institution on the importance
of admitting people who use drugs in rehab facility rather than
correctional facility. This is because there is a possibility of cracks
on supervision and security within the prison setting that results on
continuity in drug use within the settings. Furthermore,
penitentiary and correctional facility are avenues where dealers and
producers meet. More concerns are raised in areas that do not
have Narcotics Prison, where people who use drugs are put
together with other criminals such as thieves, corruptors, etc.
Penitentiary and Correctional Facility as institutions expect that any
qualified drug offenders coming who are drug users can be
admitted to rehabilitation centres. Should they not qualified and be
placed in the prison instead, the facility must be equipped with
adequate infrastructure to function as integrated rehab centre.
Currently, penitentiary has different capacity to run rehab service,
mostly without adequate funding support. So far, funding for
running rehab centre and HIV/AIDS program within the prison
setting is coming from international NGO, not the national
government.

Lack of infrastructure and human resources to run the rehab
service within the prison setting such as provision of detoxification
room, is hardly available in all penitentiary or correctional facility.
In addition, limited number of medical doctors and staff, limited
supply of medicines are incompatible with the number of inmates,
especially in prisons with over-capacity issue.
Penitentiary and Correctional Facility expect the law enforcement
process will be carried out optimally by implementing rehab service
for people who use drugs. This is also a solution to reduce the
over-capacity problem at the Technical Implementing Unit (TIU) of
Penitentiary and Correctional Facility all over Indonesia.
In-depth interview with stakeholders from
Provincial/Municipal/District National Narcotics Board reveals that
the impact on people who use drugs that do not get access to
rehab service during the legal proceedings is criminalization and
imprisonment. From the health and addiction perspectives, the
addiction is not being properly cared, thus, resulting in increase of
addiction and can encourage further drug use, even influence
others to use as well.
According to stakeholders from Provincial/Municipal/District
National Narcotics Board, the challenge for implementing this rehab
policy is mainly because there has not been any uniformity in
perception among law enforcement institutions. To get rehab
sentence, case documents and papers are sent from the attorney
to the court together with the defendant. If the Article 127 is
applied, as a user the defendant cannot be detained, therefore
there is no guarantee that he/she will return for the second time.
In that case, the investigator applies the alternate article or the
cumulative which are Article 112 and 127 so the defendant can be

detained. The logical reason behind it is that it is impossible for
someone to use drugs without possessing it at the first hand.
Provincial/Municipal/District National Narcotics Board expects the
regulation on assessment team brought up by the central
government will be in place immediately, including the financing
and other elements. This is important in order to get apprehended
people who use drugs obtain the official assessment from the
assessment team. Provincial/Municipal/District National Narcotics
Board has formed its own assessment team but it cannot move
cross-institutionally without a request letter from respective
institution. If there is a regulation in place from the central
government to officially oblige all law enforcement institutions to
appoint assessment team before carrying on to the next steps.
National Narcotics Board aims to save people who use drugs
through rehabilitation effort. People who use drugs are deemed to
have lost their past and present time, therefore, National Narcotics
Board is putting all efforts to save their future.
Other problems occur is limitation on the number of available rehab
facility. According to the National Narcotics Board, local
government needs to empower local hospitals so it can also has the
function of medical rehabilitation service for people who use drugs.

IMPACT OF REHABILITATION RIGHT’S NEGLIGENCE FOR PEOPLE WHO USE DRUGS DURING THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to IMPACT OF REHABILITATION RIGHT’S NEGLIGENCE FOR PEOPLE WHO USE DRUGS DURING THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Similar to IMPACT OF REHABILITATION RIGHT’S NEGLIGENCE FOR PEOPLE WHO USE DRUGS DURING THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (20)

IMPACT OF REHABILITATION RIGHT’S NEGLIGENCE FOR PEOPLE WHO USE DRUGS DURING THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS