The term "modern day Jack the Ripper" is tossed about quite a bit, but this case is too compelling to dismiss.

Diane Dimond writes about a recent find in Albequerque:

How many times have you heard that prostitution is a "victimless" crime?

As the argument usually goes: So what if people choose to engage in sex for money? It's between two consenting adults. The woman volunteers, the man pays. No one gets hurt.

Really?

Tell that to the families of the young women being unearthed from a stretch of mesa southwest of Albuquerque. As I write this the remains of at least 13 women and one unborn child have been discovered in a gruesome mass grave, the handiwork of at least one, and maybe more, serial killers. All the dead women are believed to have been prostitutes and/or addicted to drugs.

Because the bodies seem to have been discarded years ago Albuquerque Police Chief Ray Schultz, seeking to calm the public's fear, says everyone "Can be reassured that there's not an active serial killer ... killing and preying on people." I'm not so sure.

She writes about Dennis Rader and his long layoff between crimes, and we know that Peter Sutcliffe did the same, so to dismiss these victims as an "old case" is premature to say the least.

Also, her thoughts on the status of prostitutes is interesting, no matter which side of the debate you fall on. The backgrounds of prostitutes often include common issues of abuse and neglect, which lead many to pursue paths that ultimately end in having to exchange sex for money. Again, whether you agree with the notion that prostitution is a victimless crime or not, there's no denying that the idea that prostitutes choose their lives, or that there are benign reasons for entering into that lifestyle, is not born out by the facts.