|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
25th April 2012, 02:50 PM | #1 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,358
|
When is it reasonable to suspect people of crime?
In this post about Madeleine McCann, one person writes that there is no reason to believe the parents were involved, and that it is akin to JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theories. This makes me wonder when it is reasonable to suspect certain statistically likely people without any hard evidence.
In the late summer of 2009 in Sweden a man reported his fiancee as missing. He set up posters in his town reporting her as missing, and went public in the media asking people to report if they had seen her. As such, the case recieved quite a bit of national attention, at least compared to other such cases. Eventually, he was given space at a TV program about criminal cases. The criminologist at the program said that while most people who disappear are found alive and in good health, in this case certain circumstances makes it likely she was murdered, and he also indicated that her boyfriend was responsible, based I think both on statistics and on his behavior. The boyfriend subsequuently disappeared until later when he "found" the corpse, and made up some stories that he had been kidnapped by the Chinese mafia who brought him to the corpse. He was prosecuted for murder, but never convicted (due to the fact that the corpse had decomposed so much that cause of death was not possible to establish). Still, I'd say that there is pretty strong reason to think he was guilty. Do you think the criminologist was guilty of conspiracy thinking when he said he suspected the woman's boyfriend? He still thinks he was guilty, but also said it was legally correct not to convict him as the cause of death could not be establish (and the fiancee never confessed). I can think of two other similar Swedish cases where you could bet your life the boyfriend/husband is responsible, but in which bodies have never been found. In other words, when is it reasonable to suspect people? Especially when no bodies have been found? The man in the main story above was suspected by the criminologist before the body had been found. |
25th April 2012, 02:54 PM | #2 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,909
|
Isn't it normal in any murder case or disappearance which may be a murder to suspect the people closest to the victim?
|
__________________
A quick reminder to all participants that although incomprehensibility is not against the Membership Agreement, incivility is. Please try and remember this, and keep your exchanges polite and respectful. -arthwollipot |
|
25th April 2012, 03:40 PM | #3 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,154
|
^^^^
Reasonable: ie, having reason. In this case, having reason to believe or be suspicious. Statistics show us that it is reasonable to be suspicious, not necessarily believe that those close to a victim should be investigated. I think there exists a distinction between suspicion, and belief. Title of the thread is suspicion, so yes is my answer. It is reasonable to be suspicious without any evidence. Human behavior and all that. |
__________________
"Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another."-Epicurus Freedom of Speech is a right recognized in the First Amendment. Freedom from consequence is nowhere to be found. -Bstrong |
|
25th April 2012, 08:19 PM | #4 |
Meandering fecklessly
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
|
Real answer? It depends. In the US, the standard is the "reasonable person" test. Given the circumstances and evidence available at that time, would a reasonable person think a particular person should be subject to further scrutiny and/or investigation?
Also, crime statistics can enter into it -- such as the vast majority of abductions come from family and not strangers.
Quote:
|
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book |
|
25th April 2012, 09:18 PM | #5 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
25th April 2012, 09:23 PM | #6 |
Philosophile
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
|
In cases of murder, presumably if:
a) they have a strong motive b) they were the last people to see someone alive c) their fingerprints were all over the murder weapon d) a fresh body is buried in their basement/garden e) it couldn't have been anybody else That's not an exhaustive list and it may not be in order of importance but I think you may be able to discern a certain pattern in searching for suspects. |
25th April 2012, 09:27 PM | #7 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,161
|
When is it reasonable to suspect someone? I would say when a crime has been committed it is reasonable to suspect someone. The parents should cooperate fully and get their name cleared as quickly as possible so that the police don't waste time.
|
25th April 2012, 10:40 PM | #8 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 28,964
|
What do you think of this case in California, which is still under investigation?
Here is a sample of one of the early news reports about the story: Shaima Alawadi’s Brutal Murder Highlights Anti-Muslim Activity in San Diego
Quote:
Women wear hijabs in support of slain Iraqi woman
Quote:
Family of Iraqi Woman Killed in California Was in Crisis, Records Show
Quote:
Standard Islamic practice is to bury the body "as soon as possible", not fly the body to another country to be buried. Maybe they have legitimate reasons to bury her in Iraq, but I wonder if there is another possible reason why at least one member of the family might want to stay in Iraq after all. Of course, I am speculating here, but it seems like a suspicious situation to me. Is this reasonable? |
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare |
|
26th April 2012, 05:30 AM | #9 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
As far as Madeleine McCann is concerned, police would have been derelict in their duty if the possibility that the parents had done it didn't at least cross their minds. However, when is it reasonable to give up on a suspicion, when evidence is not forthcoming despite extensive and competent investigation?
That's what's behind most miscarriages of justice. Police suspecting someone with perfectly reasonable grounds for suspicion, but being unable to let it go when their investigation doesn't confirm their preconceptions. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
26th April 2012, 10:31 AM | #10 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,358
|
No, he believed the boyfriend was guilty, initially based on statistics and his behavior. I don't think it is a conspiracy theory (it is most likely he was guilty, even though he narrowly escaped being convicted).
The McCanns could perhaps be suspected on the same basis, except maybe statistics (I'm unsure of that). They were the last who saw the baby alive, and they have been out in the media too. Yet the latter is supposedly akin to 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'm not saying the McCanns are guilty, but to suspect something fishy about them is not madness. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|