The Claremont Killer

[rjh01]

Perhaps but that is not a reason to stop pursuing a murderer and doling out parking tickets instead.

Then what is a good reason?

You can't have it both ways. Sending a message that you can get away with murder if enough time elapses is a bad thing.

How to get away with a crime: Die first. Is that a bad thing?

We should be asking questions about why the government is spending so much money on solving this one case. That money could be used for so many other purposes. I wonder how many lives have been lost because money was spent on this case rather than health care or improving safety on the roads or educating children? Or maybe spend it solving recent crimes so that there are fewer unsolved crimes?

So far no attempt has been made to answer the question.

 

[psionl0]

So far no attempt has been made to answer the question has satisfied me.

ftfy.

I am all for the effective use of resources but murder must surely be the exception. We must always be willing to vigorously pursue a murderer and bring them to justice - no matter how old the crime.

The families of these young women are still very much alive and suffering today. Do you want to be the one to tell them that the deaths of their loved ones don't matter any more?

 

[rjh01]

Seeing that the only answer has been no better than a religious answer maybe I should give my answer.
It is all about getting good publicity. Solving a recent crime makes everyone feel good and gives good publicity to the police, but solving a cold case like this is even better, so even more money and resources should be spent on cold cases, even at the expense of recent cases.

So you can see asking the question is not trying to argue cold cases should not be resourced, but it turns out the answer is that we should give unlimited resources to such cases.

 

[Damien Evans]

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say that we should not prosecute him, I was asking why are we doing this. That is a completely separate question. So far no good answer has come. You just bring up irrelevancies. Yet you call the question ridiculous. LOL.

Sounds like exactly the same question to me

 

[Sideroxylon]

Seeing that the only answer has been no better than a religious answer maybe I should give my answer.
It is all about getting good publicity. Solving a recent crime makes everyone feel good and gives good publicity to the police, but solving a cold case like this is even better, so even more money and resources should be spent on cold cases, even at the expense of recent cases.

So you can see asking the question is not trying to argue cold cases should not be resourced, but it turns out the answer is that we should give unlimited resources to such cases.

Why we punish and why we should punish are indeed very interesting questions. It's all well and good to seek utility in punishment but most if not all of our evolved social constructs do not bear close examination. And I dont think we should dismiss out of hand our inherent sense of justice in cases like this. The victims often, and the wider community consitantly, demand strong punishment for the taking away of futures of the victims. Mostly a topic for a desicated thread if you want to take it further.

 

[Shiner]

Then what is a good reason?

You've been given a few. Justice and closure for the living victims would be my picks. Finding the other victim/s body would be another. Do you think the women he raped have gotten over it now? Should they not have justice?

How to get away with a crime: Die first. Is that a bad thing?

No, but the crime still was.

We should be asking questions about why the government is spending so much money on solving this one case. That money could be used for so many other purposes.

How much money? Did they divert funds that were not supposed to be used for cold cases?

I wonder how many lives have been lost because money was spent on this case rather than health care or improving safety on the roads or educating children?

I wonder if your ponderings have any basis in real world happenings?

Or maybe spend it solving recent crimes so that there are fewer unsolved crimes?

You don't see the irony in that statement? Regardless of age, a solved crime reduces the number of unsolved crimes. You see how that works?

So far no attempt has been made to answer the question.

Which one again?

Your original post in this thread, that was labelled 'ridiculous' was based on a whole lot of 'what if's'.

What if he hasn't broken the law in 20 years?

What if he has?

What if there are more bodies?

What if he travelled for his hobby?

What if he raped or killed someone last month? Or last year? Or 10 years ago? What is your suggested statute of limitations?

Did you read the article linked in the OP? The police commissioner says that the task force into this case has branched out to included a number of other cases. What is your problem with police doing what they are employed to do?

 

[lionking]

Well said Shiner.

 

[Hungry81]

Ees just misunderstood thats all. If investigations show he did murder them but hasn't committed a crime in the last 20 years he should get an order of Australia medal and an official appology for being harrassed for being such an inspiration in turning his life around.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

 

[kali1137]

ftfy.

Brilliant fix. But you mean to tell rjh01 that making sure a victim has healthcare after an attack is not far more important that making sure there is no attack to begin with??

I haven't had a chance to delve into this one yet but the consensus on this is that they most certainly have the right guy?

 

[rjh01]

Brilliant fix. But you mean to tell rjh01 that making sure a victim has healthcare after an attack is not far more important that making sure there is no attack to begin with??

I haven't had a chance to delve into this one yet but the consensus on this is that they most certainly have the right guy?

I was going to let this thread pass, but since you bumped it...
I asked a question, expecting a quick and easy answer, but all I got was hostile answers that were not very good. For example justice is one answer. But that word is rather vague. Others have suggested that the question implies a certain answer. There is a certain type of question that does so and that is called a loaded question. But my question is not a loaded question. I suggest the answer is what people think is the correct answer but cannot admit it so they say instead I have said it. Please check the mirror.

There are some good answers to the question, but none of you have given them to me in the thread. Says a lot about this forum and its members when the answers to a question is either hostile or vague.

As for the person's guilt, he has not been found guilty yet. His trial has not even began. He might plead guilty, or the evidence may be strong against him. But my money is that it would be an expensive trial and the outcome uncertain.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I was going to let this thread pass, but since you bumped it...
I asked a question, expecting a quick and easy answer, but all I got was hostile answers that were not very good. For example justice is one answer. But that word is rather vague. Others have suggested that the question implies a certain answer. There is a certain type of question that does so and that is called a loaded question. But my question is not a loaded question. I suggest the answer is what people think is the correct answer but cannot admit it so they say instead I have said it. Please check the mirror.

There are some good answers to the question, but none of you have given them to me in the thread. Says a lot about this forum and its members when the answers to a question is either hostile or vague.

As for the person's guilt, he has not been found guilty yet. His trial has not even began. He might plead guilty, or the evidence may be strong against him. But my money is that it would be an expensive trial and the outcome uncertain.

Its a deep philosophical question with no easy answer. It is also a hot-button issue. Lower your expectations or start a dedicated thread.

 

[Elagabalus]

Seeing that the only answer has been no better than a religious answer maybe I should give my answer.
It is all about getting good publicity. Solving a recent crime makes everyone feel good and gives good publicity to the police, but solving a cold case like this is even better, so even more money and resources should be spent on cold cases, even at the expense of recent cases.

So you can see asking the question is not trying to argue cold cases should not be resourced, but it turns out the answer is that we should give unlimited resources to such cases.

I'm pretty sure that this has not been given unlimited resources. That's why it went into the the Cold Case pile i.e. the back burner, when they couldn't find any more leads and the Detectives had to get on with the next recent case. Also, this is a triple homicide. If it had been for a traffic violation no one would have cared.

 

[Shiner]

I was going to let this thread pass, but since you bumped it...
I asked a question, expecting a quick and easy answer, but all I got was hostile answers that were not very good. For example justice is one answer. But that word is rather vague. Others have suggested that the question implies a certain answer. There is a certain type of question that does so and that is called a loaded question. But my question is not a loaded question. I suggest the answer is what people think is the correct answer but cannot admit it so they say instead I have said it. Please check the mirror.

There are some good answers to the question, but none of you have given them to me in the thread. Says a lot about this forum and its members when the answers to a question is either hostile or vague.

As for the person's guilt, he has not been found guilty yet. His trial has not even began. He might plead guilty, or the evidence may be strong against him. But my money is that it would be an expensive trial and the outcome uncertain.

Checked my mirror. Were you confused by my reply? I asked you a bunch of questions to help me understand the point you were trying to make. A couple were loaded. The majority were genuine. You didn't reply to any of what I asked, yet you want to imply an agenda for me now.

Please explain my answer for me. Apparently I'm unable to admit something.

 

[Damien Evans]

Brilliant fix. But you mean to tell rjh01 that making sure a victim has healthcare after an attack is not far more important that making sure there is no attack to begin with??

I haven't had a chance to delve into this one yet but the consensus on this is that they most certainly have the right guy?

Unknown. Police in Australia are generally pretty good but not infallible, we'll see what evidence comes out when it goes to trial.

 

[psionl0]

But you mean to tell rjh01 that making sure a victim has healthcare after an attack is not far more important that making sure there is no attack to begin with??

I wouldn't have thought that healthcare for a murder victim was all that important.

Rjh01's position seems to be that at some point we should stop pursuing cold cases - no matter how serious the crime - because the money could be better spent elsewhere. Rjh01 even goes further and suggests that in the event that a murder suspect is ultimately uncovered years later in a cold case, it would not be worth while prosecuting the suspect because of the elapse of time.

Whether you subscribe to this POV is largely a matter of opinion but rjh01 views non support as a "hostile reaction".

I haven't had a chance to delve into this one yet but the consensus on this is that they most certainly have the right guy?

The police have uncovered DNA evidence that points to a suspect who already has prior convictions for rape.

Because this is such a high profile case, it might be difficult to pick a jury that won't convict automatically. However, in WA, an accused may ask for a judge only trial if they believe that a jury can't be objective.

 

[rjh01]

<snip>

Whether you subscribe to this POV is largely a matter of opinion but rjh01 views non support as a "hostile reaction".

<snip>

I do not mind being told I am wrong and here are some good reasons for prosecuting the suspect. I do take exception to replies (yes, that means more than one member) like the one below which dismiss the question without the member showing that they have even thought about it.

What a pile of steaming nonsense. He killed three people, but if he has been clean since then all is fine?
<snip>

I think the answer below is about the best answer I can get. After reading this thread I agree with it 100%. I am unlikely to post again in this thread in the short term. I apologize for not realising the question is such a hot-button issue.

Its a deep philosophical question with no easy answer. It is also a hot-button issue. Lower your expectations or start a dedicated thread.

 

[psionl0]

I do take exception to replies (yes, that means more than one member) like the one below .....

LK has addressed the arguer in response to some of my posts too.

If he is unwilling to say "IMO" then that is his problem - not mine.

 

[lionking]

LK has addressed the arguer in response to some of my posts too.

If he is unwilling to say "IMO" then that is his problem - not mine.

Nope. They have been responses to arguments in all cases. I don't need any IMO. I did not refer to rjh01 as a "pile of steaming nonsense" but to his so-called argument.

He doesn't like the opinion I expressed? Big deal.

 

[Planigale]

I do not mind being told I am wrong and here are some good reasons for prosecuting the suspect. I do take exception to replies (yes, that means more than one member) like the one below which dismiss the question without the member showing that they have even thought about it.


I think the answer below is about the best answer I can get. After reading this thread I agree with it 100%. I am unlikely to post again in this thread in the short term. I apologize for not realising the question is such a hot-button issue.

If I may put questions back to you?

How long would one need to be crime free after a murder for punishment to be no longer 'valid'? You choose twenty years, but if it was ten or five years would that be good enough?

Should it matter the number or type of murders? Twenty years for an adult? Ten for a child murder? Add five years for sexual assault? Thirty for a police man murdered in the course of his or her duty? What about a racially motivated crime? If the person ran the gas chambers in belsen?

What quality of life during the twenty years? Should a speeding ticket result in prosecution, or would it need to be drunk driving, or a rape? Supposing he was suspected of further crimes but had been more careful and the police had been unable to prove it and the 'cold case' is the chance to put away a serial offender just as tax evasion was the method of arresting Al Capone?

If it was coming up to the twenty year limit when should it be? Arrest before twenty years? Brought to court or convicted. Would it matter if the defence dragged out the case so the twenty year limit was passed and the case had to be dropped.

The problem is this all becomes very arbitrary. I would say the simplest rule is that if the offender is alive and able to plead (i.e. not demented, in a coma), then they should be charged and tried. I can see that there might be an argument that if the victim wished the case not to be pursued after twenty years then this might be grounds for not pursuing the case (remembering that the particular case may merely be the one of a series of crimes and there may be a public interest in pursuing the case regardless of any individuals wish).

I can see an argument for a criminal who makes a confession after e.g. thirty 'blameless' years pleads guilty and fully co-operates, usually receiving a non custodial sentence.

I also agree that in a rational society there might be an agreed limit to how much to spend on investigating a crime. Indeed there might be an argument for having murder insurance which would pay out for the investigation, and investigatory agencies could compete for the murder as it would be income generating.

 

[rjh01]

Planigale - I agree these are good questions and points. Pity they are only now being asked. It was the sort of post I was looking for when I asked my questions. Instead of which I just got mostly garbage. As a result I will not make any attempt to answer them. Sorry.