The trial of the alleged murderers of Hasleza Ishak is taking on Simpson-esque proportions. Receiving nearly daily coverage in the local newspapers, what's being said in court is leaving an increasingly sour taste in the mouths of ordinary citizens.
There are many points of offense. The one which upsets me the most is the blatant sense of unfairness that surrounds the "confession" of the "murderers". Whether or not the confessions should be accepted by the courts, that's beyond me. There are a wrangle of legal procedures governing the legitimacy of such things, none of which i understand to the remotest.
But what i do understand is that the accused were questioned (interrogated may be a better word) by the police without their lawyers present. There have been claims that the confessions were obtained under duress. That may or many not be true, but it certainly would not be true if lawyers representing the legal rights of the accused were present.
I don't know much about the law, and maybe those who read this can enlighten me: is it legal to question suspected murderers without their lawyers present?
I understand that its possible to waive that right, but why would anyone accused of murder want to do that?