The aim of this research is to determine (1) the mechanism for revoking political rights for perpetrators of corruption crimes, and (2) the view of the concept of human rights regarding the revocation of political rights for perpetrators of corruption crimes. This type of research is normativelaw using a statutory approach method. Sources of legal materials are primary materials, secondary materials and tertiary materials. Techniques for systematic, qualitative, comprehensive analysis of legal materials. The research results show that (1) article 35 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (KUHP) states that there are certain rights that the state can revoke when a convict violates the law, including the right to vote and be elected. The existence of this additional sentence was because the judge also saw that there were elements of the convict who had misused their authority as a public official which caused offenses to the wider community. In Article 38 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, the taking of rights only takes effect five years after the convict has completed his prison term, and (2) the judge's consideration in imposing additional punishment in the form of revocation of the right to vote and be elected to public office, refers to the judge's consideration at the appeal level, namely Decision Number 36/PID/TPK/2013/PTDKI dated 15 December 2013 at the Corruption Crime Court at the Jakarta High Court. The additional punishment in the form of revocation of the right to vote and be elected to public office which was imposed on the defendant Djoko Susilo was more to provide a deterrent effect for perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption and also as a preventive measure to reduce the number of corruption cases occurring in Indonesia. The point is that defendants who have served their sentences, especially in corruption cases, no longer exercise their right to hold public office. The recommendations of this research are (1) In imposing additional penalties for revoking certain rights, there should be certain conditions and criteria which are clearly regulated in statutory regulations, for example assessed from the nature of the crime, and (2) Regarding additional penalties in the form of revocation of rights to voting for public office should not be necessary. The main aim of revoking this right isso that defendants who have served their sentences will no longer run for office or no longer have the authority to hold public office.