Active Now

Malizz
Discussion » Questions » Legal » Do you think there might be fewer killings* if the person who commits the act was legally required to clean up the crime scene AFTER the

Do you think there might be fewer killings* if the person who commits the act was legally required to clean up the crime scene AFTER the

investigations are completed?

 I am NOT referring to cases where the suspect is unknown, nor am I referring to the perpetrator having access that allows or might allow for evidence tampering. I am not referring to killers’ efforts to hide a crime, or to cover their involvement. I’m referring to the fact that currently, police officers, detectives, paramedics and firefighters are often the first officials to witness dead bodies. After that, the medical examiner, coroner’s staff, etc have access to the scene of the death. Once the investigation or investigations are completed and the body has been taken away to the morgue, some death scenes are left exactly as they are, others benefit from specialized companies or services that clean up those areas.  Other times, the family, the property owner, tenant, resident or other user, some third parties that are the ones who clean up scenes of death, if it happens at all.


*This encompasses a wide range of deaths that take place as the result of a person taking another’s life, not just in criminal acts, such as murder, homicide, manslaughter, but also accidental acts, such as vehicular, household incidents, neglect, etc. 

Posted - July 30, 2021

Responses


  • 17614
    No.  I do not see that as a deterrent to willful killings. 
      July 31, 2021 9:41 AM MDT
    3

  • Some killers might actually take pride in the horror they created rather than being deterred by having to mop up.  Anyone who commits murder probably doesn't have much of a moral compass that would allow them to learn from their mistakes.
      July 31, 2021 1:28 PM MDT
    2

  • 53524

     

      What about other types of killings (as I alluded to) that are not murder and/or are not intentional?
    ~

      July 31, 2021 2:34 PM MDT
    0

  • 7795
    It would save everybody a whole lot more money if they would just legally kill the guy. In addition, the way you've mentioned might be fine by you, but not by a majority of the families of the victims. They would want him just dead or rotting in a prison cell for the rest of his life. BTW, I refer a murderer as "guy', "him" or "his" because women only account for just over 11 percent of all serial murder cases in the past century. If it's serial killing you're talking about that is. This post was edited by Zack at July 31, 2021 2:02 PM MDT
      July 31, 2021 1:40 PM MDT
    1

  • 53524

     

      What about other types of killings (as I alluded to) that are not murder and/or are not intentional?
    ~

      July 31, 2021 2:33 PM MDT
    0

  • 7795
    From my point of view, you're trying to fix something that's not broken. People are paid to do certain things that are one hell of big pain and stressful. That includes cleaning up messy things. Just look at what it's going to cost for a CONVICT to learn how to clean a crime scene and have that person actually want to do it. The whole thing will create a whole bunch of problems you didn't have before.
      July 31, 2021 2:41 PM MDT
    0

  • 13277
    Doubtful.
      July 31, 2021 2:02 PM MDT
    2

  • 10052
    I think it would definitely prevent some non-human killings. I've seen people purposely run over animals, which is a crime. If they had to clean it up, they might think twice about it. 
      August 1, 2021 6:35 PM MDT
    0