Victim claims Police did not act, but is the circumstantial evidence enough?

A member of the public wrote a letter to ST's forum, claiming that the police is not doing enough, after his office was broken into. Already, there are members of the internet community who are implicating that the police are not doing their job.

Let's not be too quick to jump the gun and yell at every department of the govt. I know things have not gone too well for us. From MRT breakdowns to our young NS men killed in accidents that could have been prevented. Let's wait and see what the Police have to say on their side of the story.

Police told break-in victim to seek legal redress

IN MAY last year, my office was broken into. I lodged a police report and furnished the police with material circumstantial evidence of the culprit.

I had hoped that the police would interrogate him.

Instead, I was counselled to seek legal redress.

If there has to be legal action against every culprit, wouldn't our courts be over-burdened by ceaseless litigation?

Second, what are we to make of the police and their duties and responsibilities in crime prevention and deterrence?

Jaya Prakash

The above is just one side of the story. Just because Mr J Prakash felt that he had furnished material circumstantial evidence, does not mean that in the opinion of the investigators, that info is enough to lead to further action against the alleged culprit.

We do not know the details. Was the culprit seen loitering outside the office before the break-in? Or was the circumstantial evidence something else like a threat from the culprit that he would break into the victim's office?

Was the culprit someone the victim knows and had a long dispute with him, such that the victim is assuming it was done by the culprit?

Let's wait for the police to say their piece before we get too uptight, hoping to persecute every department of the govt.