I would be more fearful of the one that hides evidence simply because it may be harder to catch them and the messy one may get caught quicker, saving a life. I do not know if there is a better or worse but if one life could be saved I'm going for that.

depends on who they killed and why.

I would say a serial killer who hides the evidence, because one that leaves evidence out in the open is pretty much unafraid of the consequences and or willing to accept them. I think that is moral, do what you will do what you want but be willing to accept the consequence. Sounds pretty messed up. Either way a serial killer is a killer and thats just creepy in itself.

I don't think it's a matter of which is worse, but a matter of how confident the serial killer feels. If he leaves evidence and doesn't care about it, it means that he knows that he will not be caught whereas the other is afraid and may be caught. The one who leaves evidence will be that much harder to catch. Also he might be leaving false evidence to send the authorities on a wild goose chase, not to mention that he might actually be trying to implicate some innocent for a crime he commits by planting false evidence. If I'm the investigator for the case I'd be very skeptical if I found evidence on the crime scene. If it pointed towards some innocent then investigating that innocent's life and determining his potential enemies could tell me who the culprit might be. So, if the evidence points towards some innocent, the actual culprit would be caught, or in other words, no innocent could ever be prosecuted if evidence was found.

If both serial killers are equal in all other respects, then the one which hides the evidence is worse. Hiding evidence of an immoral act is itself wrong if the general effect of that concealment is to permit additional future wrongs to take place.

On the other hand... if an action is morally good but the evidence of it is the only thing which hurt other people, or the evidence of it would prevent future good from taking place, then the evidence SHOULD be hidden.

For example.. if you do things to resist an immoral tyranical government you are doing good. Keeping it secret is also GOOD in that case.

If you had a disgusting but harmless hobby (such as singing out of tune) which didn't hurt anyone but made you happy (ergo is good). You should keep it secret as well. As revealing it would only bother people.

If there was some kind of immoral act which could not be stopped even if it became public, (I can't imagine such a thing) but revealing it would bother people.. then even that act should be hidden. But I can't think of an immoral act that can't be stopped. Generally we don't call unstoppable things immoral.

I can see where your coming from, serial killers, are normally sociopaths, which is another word for physcopath, there are different types i.e (sorry to use movie refrences, only thing I can think of at the moment) Mickie and Mallory _natural born Killer_ whom everybody knew as the killers, and made no effort to hide to, in fact flanted the fact. on the other hand Patrick Bates _American Physco_ who was a serial killer, though was a perfectionist when it came to hiding his murders. Its what kind of metal disease they have. Not that i'm saying every killer had metal health problems, but the serial killers are more then likely to have.

They're both as bad as the other, but the one that covers evidence shows some what of a rational mind and knows the consequences of his actions (and possibly right from wrong)I would think an intellegent mind who is capable of planning and hiding his actions, but has no concience would be considerd more dangerous, scary... whatever you may call it. Where as a serial killer who dosen't hide his evidence may seem to act on more of an irratic impulse,(not as rational in his planning ... if planned at all) He may not realize the consequences of his actions, or maybe doesn't care ... which I think would make him insane, but not as scary ... because more likely to be caught and locked up for life in a psyc. ward.