It is troubling to us that Disturbed Citizen can have such a misguided and irresponsible view of the nature of the criminal justice system. His criticisms in fact reflect his lack of confidence in the justice system he thinks judges are being hoodwinked by charlatan lawyers.

He is also confident that the police always catch the right person. Perhaps he would like to remove the troublesome inconvenience of a criminal trial and send anyone and everyone to prison as long as a policeman says so?

To appreciate the disturbing nature of Disturbed Citizen's suggestions, let us first consider what a 'cautioned statement' is. There are generally two kinds of statements that the police would take from people relevant to their investigations.

The first would be taken from those the police have considered to be mere (or potential) witnesses to a crime. The second would be those that they take from persons whom they consider as potential perpetrators.

It is in the second kind of statement that a 'caution' has to be given. Those avid watchers of legal television series would be familiar with the caution, which is usually delivered with aplomb by the hero-cop after a lengthy, explosive and exciting vehicular chase.

For those that are not it essentially goes like this: 'You have the right to remain silent but if you choose to say anything, what you say may be used against you in a court of law.' Once such a warning is given by the police, whatever a suspect may say, compiled in a statement, can be admitted in court as evidence.

That statement that the suspect gives is called a 'cautioned statement'. If it contains a confession of the crime, the cautioned statement takes the quality of being 'an admission'. This distinction is important because a cautioned statement does not necessarily mean an admission.

Now, one need not be a genius to appreciate the potential for abuse in these cases. We do not know what the police do when they have a suspect in custody for a period of up to 14 days to 'assist in their investigations' before the accused is charged in court.

We cannot know if a caution is actually given, whether the accused is fully aware of his right to remain silent or what tactics the police employ to obtain a confession. The threat is always present that the police torture or intimidate the suspect into confessing the crime whilst paying lip service to the requirement for the caution.

Worse still, they could just round up the usual suspects and beat the living daylights out of them until one of them confesses to the crime which he did not commit just to avoid further beatings.

That is why safeguards have been incorporated into the law to ensure that any cautioned statement given by a suspect must be voluntarily and freely given without the presence of any threats, promises or inducements from any person in authority.

That is why the courts are very strict when it comes to the admission of such statements as evidence against a person accused of committing a crime and have put the onus on the prosecution to prove that the cautioned statement was given in a voluntary manner.

So when Disturbed Citizen complains that 'there is now a trend for the courts to refuse to admit the cautioned statements ...' the complaint should not be with the courts or with defence counsel but with the police.

Obviously, the learned judges who listen to the evidence are not convinced that the Royal Malaysian Police have obtained the cautioned statements in a proper manner. The fact that this is a 'trend' does not speak ill of our criminal justice system but rather is a damning indictment on the quality of our police force. This is because they appear unable to obtain an admission from a witness without the use of force, threats or intimidation.

And just think about it how truly great are our police force anyway? Stories of snatch thefts, rapes, gangsterism and robberies fill our newspapers everyday. The fact that crime is so rampant clearly indicates that the police are not a deterrent factor.

The fact that Darren Kang could be beaten to death in a heavily populated upmarket area shows the lawlessness that has descended upon our country. We won't even mention the petty traffic offences that are committed everyday. The rakyat's frustration with police impotency was epitomised in the snatch thief who was lynched by members of the public.

A lynch mob is not a feature present in a civilised country. It is not present in a country governed by laws which are dutifully enforced by those appointed to do so. In a civilised country, an accused is brought to trial before a capable and independent body that would determine according to the applicable laws and standards whether he was guilty of such a crime.

This is important because every citizen is equal before the law and therefore the law must apply equally. It follows therefore that every accused person has the right to utilise any available law, procedure or evidence to challenge the prosecution's evidence against him.

The prosecution's evidence must be tested and must stand up to independent scrutiny. If not, the court trial would amount to nothing more than a charade like it was in the Anwar Ibrahim trial .

What Disturbed Citizen fails to appreciate is that to be accused of a crime is a very serious matter and has grave repercussions for the accused. He will be marked for the rest of his life and ostracised even though he has done his prison time.

He will be condemned as a pariah because our society unfortunately, as much as we would like to believe otherwise, is not a forgiving or a generous one. Therefore before a person is condemned to such a fate, it must be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he has in fact committed the crime.

As has oft been said, better 10 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man be imprisoned for something he did not do.

We are also perturbed by Disturbed Citizen's characterisation of defence lawyers. He seems to insinuate that they are some vile specie of lawyers that would say, do and accuse anything to ensure an acquittal of their client. He also is under the impression that every person charged is guilty.

Firstly, let us remind Disturbed Citizen that one is always presumed innocent until proven guilty. Secondly, Disturbed Citizen should tear himself away from those silly misleading television shows and take the trouble to sit in a criminal court and see real lawyers at work.

It's not entertaining like Ally McBeal or dramatic like The Practise with its one dimensional characters; it's real and it's life. He will find that sometimes the lawyer, the prosecutor, the police, the witnesses or even the victim is responsible or share in the responsibility when an accused walks away free even though all concerned are virtually certain that he or she did it.

He will find that witnesses also tell lies - some get away with it whilst others don't. Most importantly, he will find that defence lawyers are just doing their job to the best of their abilities.

Disturbed Citizen should practice a little empathy and ask himself this: if he were accused of a crime that he didn't do, wouldn't he want a defence lawyer to do his very best and utilise every rule, procedure and law to get him acquitted? If he didn't want one, he would be a very rare breed indeed like the Dodo bird.

One of the five principles of the Rukunegara is the Supremacy of Law - Kedaulatan Undang-undang. If Disturbed Citizen's viewpoints are an accurate reflection of public sentiment, then all of us are to be pitied for we have forgotten that we are ruled, not by people, but by the law.

The police must bring criminals to book, but they must do so in a manner that complies with the law. Judges and defence lawyers (and indeed prosecutors) have a duty to ensure that the law is upheld, and if the police bring an accused person to court having obtained evidence illegally, then that accused person must go free.

There can be no compromise on this otherwise, Malaysia becomes a police state.

Letter jointly signed by K Shanmuga, Fahri Azzat, Edmund Bon, Amer Hamzah, Edward Saw and Choi Lai Yi.