Let me walk home safely

THANK you, Ravinder Singh (Stop pampering criminals, Letters, Jan 11) for putting my thoughts into words.
In the last paragraph, he wrote "... that criminals are being defended and accorded "rights" to their life and wellbeing ...".
What rights do they have? Even if there are, they have waived all rights when setting out to commit those crimes.
What about the rights of the victims? Injured victims are denied their right to live a "normal and healthy life".
Rape victims are denied their whole life ahead (if they survive the ordeal). Murdered victims are denied their most basic constitutional right to "live a life".
One example is the 2012 case where two brothers were sentenced to death for causing the death of the burglar who broke into their house. The Malaysian Bar Council said the people should not take the law into their own hands.
So, when attacked, victims are supposed to tell the burglar(s) to halt while the victim(s) call the police? Is the law saying that victims have the intention (to hurt or kill) and the perpetrators don't (oh, they were just there to rob with no intention to cause bodily harm or commit murder)?
In the latest case on Jan 3, Johor Baru, the victim fought with the robber and killed the robber, severing his jugular vein (only a skilled hired killer would have been able to do that with intent). The victim (who was also injured in the scuffle) is now being investigated for murder.
We are all trying our best to prevent such crimes from happening (locking ourselves in grilled houses, almost like a jail) but robbers will try all kinds of ways to break through all barriers.
When confronted suddenly, victims will react automatically with no time to think which is the best way to handle the situation.
And in the scuffle, the burglar may be injured or even killed. What if it is the other way round – the victim(s) get injured or killed? Would the burglar be tried the same way? All the victims are doing is to try to overpower the burglar so that no harm would befall themselves. Is that so wrong?
Incidentally, a lawyer who shot dead a despatch clerk who assaulted and tried to rob him back in 2002 was acquitted by reason of self-defence. In 2015, a 50-year-old trader was charged with murder (which carries the mandatory death sentence) for stabbing two robbers, killing one of them.
By indicting the victims, the law is telling perpetrators or would-be perpetrators that it is all right for them to commit crimes and should they be caught, the law will look after them.
So why should the law look out for these perpetrators who don't even think for themselves? If they do use their grey matter, they would not have embarked on such a criminal path.
We are not safe anywhere! Our country boasts of 60 years of independence but (I speak for myself) we can't even walk on the streets at night without fearing for our safety (like I used to back in the 70s and 80s).
Please put some sense and purpose back into our otherwise feared for lives.
Amy
Kuala Lumpur