Sir, - I am angered and distressed by the letter of Mr. Jim Cooke (December 19th) and his call for the abolition of the right to silence. By removing such a basic civil right, the rights of all citizens (not only of alleged criminals) to a fair legal process are torn away.
It places the onus on the defendant to prove his own innocence. This severely dilutes the basic tenet of the entire criminal legal system; that one is innocent until proven guilty. This leads to a draconian legal process and to miscarriages of justice, such as were seen in the UK some years ago.
The laws as they exist allow an adequate framework for the investigation and prosecution of alleged criminals. This has been demonstrated in the investigations associated with the callous murder of Veronica Guerin. When the Gardai did their job properly, half the major villains in the capital suddenly ran scared.
Instead of promoting a confrontational and draconian legal system, why does Mr. Cooke not propose dealing with the underlying causes of crime such, as social inequality, on a long term basis? Might I remind him that these civil rights he proposes to abolish are the "safeguards... put into the legislation to control the circumstances of interrogation". I hope Mr. Cooke will never find himself in a situation where he will be denied his ersatz rights to bail and silence. - Yours, etc,
Trinity College, Dublin,
Dublin 2.