13 ms·

Well, for starters, it would mean that members of the public who had interacted with the murderer, and had important information about their motives, means of o

Well, for starters, it would mean that members of the public who had interacted with the murderer, and had important information about their motives, means of obtaining weapons, accomplices, etc. would not realize that they had important information, and therefore would not make this information available to investigators. Next, it would mean that powerful interests who had responsibility for the crime, by instigation or negligence, might be able to avoid accountability for their actions/omissions, since people would not be able to connect them to the murderer. Then there's the inability of the public to see what aspects of current culture might have lead to the crime, or what deficiencies in mental health care contributed, etc. Democracy is based on the belief that ordinary people can be trusted to know the truth, and use it in governing themselves. Perhaps you don't believe that, and are just against democracy?

giantg2 4y ago
"and therefore would not make this information available to investigators." I find it unlikely that investigators would not be able to find those connections themselves, especially in the digital age. "Next, it would mean that powerful interests who had responsibility for the crime, by instigation or negligence, might be able to avoid accountability for their actions/omissions, since people would not be able to connect them to the murderer." How so? The media could still report on groups instigating the crime without naming the person committing it. "Democracy is based on the belief that ordinary people can be trusted to know the truth, and use it in governing themselves. Perhaps you don't believe that, and are just against democracy?" Don't troll, it's against the rules. Our democracy has had restriction on speech throughout its history, and has added others. Withholding the name has no impact on how ordinary people will make decisions since it's not pertinent to the underlying issued which could be described through impersonal means (talk about the actual mental illness you mentioned and not the specific person).
- yucky 4y ago
  >I find it unlikely that investigators would not be able to find those connections themselves, especially in the digital age. Less than half of all murders in the US are solved in this "digital age", and the majority of the ones that are, are because of witnesses and informants telling what they know.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    But we aren't talking about unsolved murders. You already can't release a name for those because they're unsolved. Witnesses and informants already have knowledge that a crime was committed. They can come forward on their own. Otherwise, investigators have to track them down anyways. The fact that we know who has perpetrated the crime makes it much easier to find any links because the investigators have access to the digital trail.
    - yucky 4y ago
      It refutes your point that digital evidence is enough. It's clearly not. So the original point was correct.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        Where did I say that? I remember saying in the digital age those connections are easier to make. Once they know the individual, they have vast digital resources to make the connections. Digital evidence can lead to physical or bystander evidence. I don't see any refutation. Even if my point was somehow invalid, that doesn't make your point correct. That would be a fallacy.

giantg2 4y ago

"and therefore would not make this information available to investigators." I find it unlikely that investigators would not be able to find those connections themselves, especially in the digital age. "Next, it would mean that powerful interests who had responsibility for the crime, by instigation or negligence, might be able to avoid accountability for their actions/omissions, since people would not be able to connect them to the murderer." How so? The media could still report on groups instigating the crime without naming the person committing it. "Democracy is based on the belief that ordinary people can be trusted to know the truth, and use it in governing themselves. Perhaps you don't believe that, and are just against democracy?" Don't troll, it's against the rules. Our democracy has had restriction on speech throughout its history, and has added others. Withholding the name has no impact on how ordinary people will make decisions since it's not pertinent to the underlying issued which could be described through impersonal means (talk about the actual mental illness you mentioned and not the specific person).

yucky 4y ago
>I find it unlikely that investigators would not be able to find those connections themselves, especially in the digital age. Less than half of all murders in the US are solved in this "digital age", and the majority of the ones that are, are because of witnesses and informants telling what they know.
- giantg2 4y ago
  But we aren't talking about unsolved murders. You already can't release a name for those because they're unsolved. Witnesses and informants already have knowledge that a crime was committed. They can come forward on their own. Otherwise, investigators have to track them down anyways. The fact that we know who has perpetrated the crime makes it much easier to find any links because the investigators have access to the digital trail.
  - yucky 4y ago
    It refutes your point that digital evidence is enough. It's clearly not. So the original point was correct.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Where did I say that? I remember saying in the digital age those connections are easier to make. Once they know the individual, they have vast digital resources to make the connections. Digital evidence can lead to physical or bystander evidence. I don't see any refutation. Even if my point was somehow invalid, that doesn't make your point correct. That would be a fallacy.