Defending the current investigative process, some legal experts argue that the Attorney General’s office must prioritize procedural integrity over speed. In complex cases like the Durian Tunggal shooting, the decision to hold an inquest is often a safeguard designed to ensure that all evidence is thoroughly vetted in an open court setting before formal charges are filed. This approach protects the rights of all involved and prevents the risk of a botched prosecution that could collapse under scrutiny.
Proponents of this view emphasize that the legal system is built on the principle of due process, which requires a high standard of proof. Rushing to charge individuals without a complete, court-sanctioned inquiry could lead to significant legal errors. By utilizing an inquest, the authorities can systematically examine witness testimonies and forensic evidence, providing a transparent record that a private investigation might lack.
Furthermore, the decision to hold an inquest is not necessarily a sign of inaction but rather a commitment to a thorough investigation. For the public, this ensures that the truth is established through a formal, impartial process rather than through political or social pressure. Maintaining this standard is essential for public confidence in the rule of law, as it demonstrates that the state is not acting impulsively.
Ultimately, the goal of the justice system is to achieve a fair outcome, not just a quick one. While the frustration of the legal community is understandable, the long-term stability of the judicial process depends on adhering to established protocols. If the authorities are to maintain their credibility, they must be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of the timeline demanded by external critics.