Who decides who gets to be forgiven, and what does redemption actually look like?
These questions have been raised by a recent development in the case of convicted Bali bomber Umar Patek and the unveiling of his new business venture brewing coffee in the Indonesian city of Surabaya.
Patek was sentenced to 20 years in prison for mixing some of the chemicals used to make the bombs in the horrific 2002 terror attack in Indonesia, which left 202 people dead. Now, having been released in 2022 after serving 11 years of his sentence, Patek is hoping to start a new life after partnering with a coffee shop which will sell his own brand of coffee: Ramu Coffee 1966 by Umar Patek.
Ramu, which means “to concoct” in Indonesian, is “Umar” spelt backwards, and 1966 is the year he was born. “Once, I used to concoct bombs, but now I concoct coffee,” Patek said of his change of career.
Predictably, Patek’s new business venture has raised eyebrows, with some questioning his motives and whether a convicted criminal should be allowed to start over.
The deradicalization of convicted terrorists in Indonesia has long been the subject of debate.
The country has pioneered a “top-down” approach to deradicalization, using former convicts as “ambassadors of peace” and encouraging them to attend events and speak out on the dangers of radical ideology. Many would argue that this model has been overwhelmingly successful, and Indonesia has not seen an attack by the hardline group Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), whose members masterminded the deadly Bali bombing, since 2009. In June of last year, senior members of JI sensationally declared that the group was officially disbanding.
In the years since the 2002 Bali bombing and other subsequent attacks, including those against high-end hotels in Jakarta in 2009, many senior figures from JI have publicly disavowed violence.
These include Ali Imron, who is serving a life sentence in prison in Jakarta for his role in the bombing, and Patek – yet many have been left dissatisfied. One of the main criticisms from victims and family members of victims of the atrocities of the early 2000s has been that the men are faking remorse in return for leniency from the authorities.
But is it a case of “damned if they do and damned if they don’t”?
All over the world, the criminal justice system decides who gets to be punished, although in many jurisdictions, the focus is on both punishment and reform.
In all but the most severe cases, the rationale is that sending people to prison is not the final goal. Rather, criminals are meant to be punished for their crimes by being deprived of their liberty and comforts, but there is also meant to be an element of redemption and hope for the future.
This is why many criminal justice systems provide convicted criminals with tools that will assist them in turning their lives around and one day reintegrating into society. These can include educational opportunities while incarcerated, or work training programs that teach inmates skills that they can one day use in the outside world to gain meaningful employment.
For his part, Patek has said that he did not receive any funding from the state for his new coffee venture, but rather was offered the opportunity privately by the local coffee shop in Surabaya. The owner had read about his case and release from prison, and reached out to him with the offer of a joint venture.
“Many people thought it was strange that I wanted to work with a former terrorist,” David Andreasmita, the owner of Hedon Estate Cafe in Surabaya, told the press. “I have always liked helping people. [But I knew] if I let Umar be, then it would be very possible he would become a terrorist again.”
“I am Christian and he is Muslim, but we can joke together. Umar even considers me his mentor,” he said, “This coffee business is a form of radicalization.”
Some victims and family members have not been supportive of the new venture, including Indonesian Chusnul Chotimah, who suffered burns to 70 percent of her body as a result of the Bali bombing. Families in Australia have similarly expressed concerns.
While it would be unsympathetic to dismiss their grievances, there is also the issue of how Patek is meant to rehabilitate himself following his release from prison. Former convicts do still, after all, have to make a living and become functioning members of society again.
Studies have also shown that re-offending rates tend to be lower when former criminals have objectives, goals and new support systems in their lives, which keep them out of prison and on a straighter path. Essentially, in the case of terrorists, their previous radical networks need to be replaced with other frameworks for social systems that support and encourage rehabilitation.
It is also true that convicted criminals, all over the world, not just in Indonesia, tend to struggle to find work or new social groups once they are released. Put simply, many employers do not want to hire convicted felons – meaning that many offenders are left with increasingly limited options.
With that in mind, it is understandable that Patek accepted the lifeline presented to him by Hedon Estate Cafe and has run with the new opportunity. In many ways, his willingness to turn a corner and try to begin again is something to be applauded, although it is surely a bitter pill to swallow for those who lost people close to them who will never have such an opportunity.
Would we prefer that convicted criminals fade into obscurity once they are released from prison, or should we celebrate those who embrace the path to redemption, apologize for their crimes and seek to move forward?
