Ned Kelly and his gang killed 3 police officers, Kennedy, Lonigan & Scanlon, of whom would've been someone's father, brother and someone's son. The families would have wanted Ned to serve a consequence for murdering these loved ones. The public would have needed to see justice be done after such an incident or else be in terror of it happening again in another location, in the same way that contemporary terrorist attacks in one location cause fear of attacks in others.

Simple minded others could have gone by example and developed the idea that it is right to kill public people in order to get what is favoured. Crime is crime. The governing body had to show that "men as ignorant and as weak as Kelly must learn from him that it is wise to refrain from bloodshed; that the State is stronger than any one citizen" otherwise risk condoning similar acts by others in an already turbulent country (The Age, November 13, 1880). Therefore the government needed to outlaw Kelly and his gang in order to stem revolts by others and losses of confidence in the governing body of the time.

Ned Kelly and his gang also stole from people who would've earned their money, in order to give it to others. In other words, Ned Kelly bullied people in order to get his own way. He could've gone about this in a fairer way and sort to become part of public debate through entering into politics or through law courts. Instead of showing value to human life and human achievement, he chose to sort his differences out by killing and stealing.

Kelly is not a hero. A hero is a person who values all people and resorts not to violence but to peaceful, legitimate and fair debate. This he could have had, but his preference to kill and mame leaves him in the minds of many Australians... the first Australian terrorist.