<![CDATA[Capital punishment remains one of the most debated sanctions in criminal law, raising questions about enforcement effectiveness and human rights protection. Indonesia and Thailand, both retentionist states in Southeast Asia, retain the death penalty despite differing regulatory characteristics and reform trajectories. This study analyzes convergence and divergence in capital punishment regulation between the two jurisdictions and examines implications for criminal law reform in Southeast Asia. Using a normative comparative legal method combining statutory, conceptual, and functional approaches, the study draws on primary legal materials, including legislation and international instruments such as the ICCPR and its Second Optional Protocol, alongside Scopus-indexed literature. Findings show both countries converge in retaining capital punishment for serious offenses, particularly premeditated murder and drug crimes, yet diverge in reform models. Indonesia's 2023 Criminal Code introduces a conditional death penalty with a ten-year probationary mechanism permitting commutation, while Thailand pursues a restrictive model narrowing death-eligible offenses and regulating execution procedures. Neither state has ratified the Second Optional Protocol; reform reflects domestic accommodation of ICCPR Article 6 rather than treaty-mandated abolition. Applying Nelken's theory of legal divergence, the study concludes that shared international pressures produce distinct, domestically mediated reform pathways rather than uniform regional convergence toward one model.]]>
