Staton confident this case won't end up in the cold case file

[ami]

Sad but true that money is the issue on everyone's mind these days...
It does have to come from somewhere, and whether they say so or not, it comes from taking away from something else. So people are going to ask questions and wonder why they are not seeing a result...whether it is logical or not.

That's cool, and I hope the people can sue the perpetrator of the crime for causing so much financial damage. After all, it's the criminal who is directly responsible for taking the money away from all those other things, and for hiding evidence in such a way that the investigation is prolonged. Hopefully there's a legal mechanism to sue the criminal for the money they cost the state.

 

[cluciano63]

That's cool, and I hope the people can sue the perpetrator of the crime for causing so much financial damage. After all, it's the criminal who is directly responsible for taking the money away from all those other things, and for hiding evidence in such a way that the investigation is prolonged. Hopefully there's a legal mechanism to sue the criminal for the money they cost the state.

They can sue, but that never affects the bottom line...if they convict the perp, that person will lack earning power forever...and if it is Terri, she does not own anything of value, it seems...

 

[ami]

They can sue, but that never affects the bottom line...if they convict the perp, that person will lack earning power forever...and if it is Terri, she does not own anything of value, it seems...

Yup, the criminal cost the state a lot of money and will cost them even more during a trial and then when they are in prison. Of course it pales in comparison to their abduction of Kyron and damage to so many lives, but certainly they're also morally responsible for the financial damage as well so I can see why that would amplify the anger towards the criminal.

 

[GrainneDhu]

That's cool, and I hope the people can sue the perpetrator of the crime for causing so much financial damage. After all, it's the criminal who is directly responsible for taking the money away from all those other things, and for hiding evidence in such a way that the investigation is prolonged. Hopefully there's a legal mechanism to sue the criminal for the money they cost the state.

Unfortunately, the perpetrator is usually pretty well out of money by the time they are convicted. If they had money to start with, the costs of paying for a good defence team often clean out their accounts.

Once they've been convicted, they are likely to be working at cents per hour. Even for prisoners with judgments to pay off, judges have ruled that only a percentage (something like 20%) of their prison wages can be garnished.

If a convict were making $1/hour (which is the high end in my state), that means the maximum they'd pay off per week would be $8/week or $416/year.

To pay off a $1 million investigation, that would take 2,404 years (rounded up slightly). And that's only if there is no interest included.

Personally, I cannot recall a single case of a convict being sentenced to repay the costs of the investigation that got them convicted.

 

[ami]

Unfortunately, the perpetrator is usually pretty well out of money by the time they are convicted. If they had money to start with, the costs of paying for a good defence team often clean out their accounts.

Once they've been convicted, they are likely to be working at cents per hour. Even for prisoners with judgments to pay off, judges have ruled that only a percentage (something like 20%) of their prison wages can be garnished.

If a convict were making $1/hour (which is the high end in my state), that means the maximum they'd pay off per week would be $8/week or $416/year.

To pay off a $1 million investigation, that would take 2,404 years (rounded up slightly). And that's only if there is no interest included.

Personally, I cannot recall a single case of a convict being sentenced to repay the costs of the investigation that got them convicted.

I totally agree that they will never be able to repay the state for the financial damage they caused. They'll never even be able to repay their own upkeep in the prison. But because they can't repay it doesn't make them any less responsible (= to blame) for the financial burden on the tax payers. They caused it, not LE. So I think if people are upset about the financial outlay, the cause of that outlay should be kept in mind. And if there's a cap on the amount that the public is willing to pay for SAR or missing persons investigation, it should probably be quantified and stated pretty clearly, perhaps voted on. If there is no pre-agreed upon cap, then where is the line drawn? If people in general want the child found, and people are also generally uneasy or in disagreement with the financial outlay - what's the solution?

It reminds me of the early advent of AIDS, during the Regan administration. Margaret Heckler, the heath secretary, publicly stated that AIDS wasn't a problem that money could solve - only scientific research could solve it. So she wouldn't agree to put money into AIDS research. Of course that made no sense because scientific research costs money, and without any funding the scientists were unable to do research on AIDS and the Regan administration could point the finger to the unfunded scientists with no equipment or lab space who weren't solving the problem fast enough.

It's a classic problem. We want the solutions that money can facilitate, but we also don't want to spend the money. Some solutions aren't found early in the game and so the financing that has been put into them are looked upon as "wasted". Some things aren't a quick win, and it's true that sometimes we can't afford the long haul funding. It's a tough choice.

 

[Beatrice]

If Stanton has reason to believe that Kyron is alive & the case will not go cold....I believe him. The Task Force was set up recently to investigate Sauvie Island....Without doing any home searches.

By now, they know exactly who & what Terri Horman is....Her "frequent haunts".....................

 

[ThoughtFox]

There's a logic problem for me in the idea that if a case grows "cold" then it is a failure. I don't think that is true.

Even if a case grows cold, even if it takes years to solve, the money isn't wasted because they keep the evidence in the vault and if a new lead arises the police can start where they left off.

 

[Beatrice]

Kaine Horman tells us to be PATIENT...

It's a matter of TIME before LE can widdle away all of Terri's contacts.

And, to hold Terri responsible for Kyron's disappearance.

 

[GrainneDhu]

I totally agree that they will never be able to repay the state for the financial damage they caused. They'll never even be able to repay their own upkeep in the prison. But because they can't repay it doesn't make them any less responsible (= to blame) for the financial burden on the tax payers. They caused it, not LE. So I think if people are upset about the financial outlay, the cause of that outlay should be kept in mind. And if there's a cap on the amount that the public is willing to pay for SAR or missing persons investigation, it should probably be quantified and stated pretty clearly, perhaps voted on. If there is no pre-agreed upon cap, then where is the line drawn? If people in general want the child found, and people are also generally uneasy or in disagreement with the financial outlay - what's the solution?

It reminds me of the early advent of AIDS, during the Regan administration. Margaret Heckler, the heath secretary, publicly stated that AIDS wasn't a problem that money could solve - only scientific research could solve it. So she wouldn't agree to put money into AIDS research. Of course that made no sense because scientific research costs money, and without any funding the scientists were unable to do research on AIDS and the Regan administration could point the finger to the unfunded scientists with no equipment or lab space who weren't solving the problem fast enough.

It's a classic problem. We want the solutions that money can facilitate, but we also don't want to spend the money. Some solutions aren't found early in the game and so the financing that has been put into them are looked upon as "wasted". Some things aren't a quick win, and it's true that sometimes we can't afford the long haul funding. It's a tough choice.

I completely agree.

I don't think that we, as a nation, can go on by simply spending money on whatever crisis catches our attention at the time because it turns out that by doing so, really important stuff is being neglected. Stuff that we will really wish we'd funded.

I'm not sure that voting on line item spending is the way to go because that can just exaggerate the tendency to fund the hot topic du jour.

What I would like to see is some general principles and priorities agreed upon, so that governments at all levels can make decisions based on something more than "what will get me voted into office in the next election?"