THERE are those among us capable of committing serious crimes that are both brutal and merciless.  

The MRT station robbery in a lift that went viral is an example of how aggressive a robber can be, even when the victim is defenceless, weak and incapable of putting up any resistance.

The manner in which the robber assaulted the victim is only the tip of the iceberg of what a brutal and dangerous criminal is capable of. They are obviously not the norm but we must realise that they exist and walk among us.

However, I do support those who want an upheaval of oppressive preventive laws that have outlived their purpose and have no place in the future of a modern and vibrant society.  

The police definitely will have to adapt, reinvent and accommodate the need to allow a higher level of tolerance to dissent. The days of police dogmatism and parental like guidance, is a relic of the past.

Failing to adjust will result in greater difficulty to maintain public order in future, especially when contemporary society demands a police service that carries out its roles and functions without fear or favour in adherence to the strictest  interpretation of the rule of law.
 
I have reiterated that the tools of investigation such as detention, interviewing, interrogation, further detention must be strengthened coupled with early firm action against false reports,  contradicting statements, tampering with witnesses, corruption, etc.

This will allow the police to have enough time and opportunity to gather as much admissible evidence as possible, so as to ensure that justice will be done. 

This has to be balanced with a higher degree of freedom and the social dissent comes with it. The police will have to engage to become more effective in contemporary society and the influence of social media. Ignoring it or blaming it as a social ill will result in ineffective and irrelevant policing.

Calling for the abolishment of the death penalty is another matter altogether!

It is opined that the death penalty must not be eliminated totally from our system but should remain as an option for extremely brutal criminals. Improving the checks and balances of meting out the sentence would be a viable and a more practical approach.

Many armchair experts have given their views for and against and it would be prudent to listen to hands-on investigators, prosecutors, first-hand witnesses who mostly are families of the victims, and finally, the survivors of such crimes.

All parties must feel the pulse of the situation especially those directly affected by such brutal acts. It is part of final closure to some in the name of justice and not all about deterrence. 

This empathy will go a long way in helping to understand the need for the death penalty. The system can be improved to ensure that it is used only in extremely brutal offences and that it is sparingly used with multi-level checks and balances.

Most cannot comprehend the extent of the extremity in the dangerous brutal criminal mind. A thorough approach to understanding this mutant species that walk among us will go a long way towards understanding the need for capital punishment.
 
Many of these armchair experts who are for capital  punishment claim to have knowledge of such brutal criminals but lack the experience to convey a convincing argument. 

I fear the actual message will not get across to all the relevant stakeholders. It could be the undoing of having such a penalty at the expense of justice which will be a great loss to the criminal justice system.

* G. Selva reads The Malaysian Insight.