Thread: Handing out reward money for capturing wanted criminals

"Los Angeles (CNN) -- The city of Los Angeles put up $1 million in reward money Sunday for help catching Christopher Dorner, the renegade ex-cop accused of killing three people in a vendetta against his old department."

Now there are some of the businesses that say they won't pay this because Dorner wasn't arrested and convicted but instead he shot and killed himself. That's not very smart because he was found with the help of two different peoples help and that should be all that was necessary in this case. That reward should be split between the two different people so that the total is still given out but equally to those who helped in the capture. Whenever you tell people there's a reward there should be no strings attached to giving that money to those who deserve it. There were two different people who led to his death and that's all that was needed to claim the reward.

I agree... a bit like the Osama bin Laden reward that was weaseled out of being paid.

This whole reward thing gets me because I don't think people should need a reward to do the right thing, this being said I agree with you guys, if the authorities offer one then they should jolly well pay it.

But just back to the whole reward idea, you sometimes see pictures of peoples cats or dogs that have gone missing being put on a lamp post or tree, I always think this is especially sad when you see children putting these pictures up. But I don't know of anyone ever claiming one of these rewards, usually between £500 to £1000, for finding someones lost dog or cat ect..., but the way I figure it you'd have to be pretty heartless to do so. I would really like to think people could put up those pictures with just a phone number and that people would just have the decency to do the right thing without need of a reward.

Many people do, but even so- I've seen the rewards on lost pets paid and refused and paid and accepted.
I've never accepted one (probably to the relief of the owner) but I've seen others have the reward pushed onto them, (You're taking it if I have to shove it in your pants!) I think this may be because the owner had a sense of honor- if they promised a reward, they would not allow it to be refused.
But since I knew this, a few years later when they lost one of their dogs, I did a sneaky deposit of pup on porch, ring bell and split. (Sooner or later, free dogs always ended up coming to my yard... I had a hot little border collie. No, really, she was a sexy thang...)
I can understand how a desperate owner that loves their pet might be strapping for cash.
But a business or government agency that offers a bounty or a reward should never weasel out of paying out (This post takes the record for the number of follow up sentences placed in parentheses.)

Originally Posted by Ascended

This whole reward thing gets me because I don't think people should need a reward to do the right thing, this being said I agree with you guys, if the authorities offer one then they should jolly well pay it.

In the case mentioned above, the person or person's lending the aid might be putting their life at risk. However refusing the reward would be the heroic thing to do I guess.

But just back to the whole reward idea, you sometimes see pictures of peoples cats or dogs that have gone missing being put on a lamp post or tree, I always think this is especially sad when you see children putting these pictures up. But I don't know of anyone ever claiming one of these rewards, usually between £500 to £1000, for finding someones lost dog or cat ect..., but the way I figure it you'd have to be pretty heartless to do so. I would really like to think people could put up those pictures with just a phone number and that people would just have the decency to do the right thing without need of a reward.

What if you were exceptionally good at it, and you wanted to make a career of going around and finding peoples' pets? Trying to hold down a day job at the same time would reduce the number of successful finds.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Ascended

This whole reward thing gets me because I don't think people should need a reward to do the right thing, this being said I agree with you guys, if the authorities offer one then they should jolly well pay it.

In the case mentioned above, the person or person's lending the aid might be putting their life at risk. However refusing the reward would be the heroic thing to do I guess.

Perhaps in cases such as you suggest when people are put their own lives on the line then rewards might be acceptable, what I don't think is acceptable is people needing rewards to just say pick up the telephone and let the police know a convicted murderer say might hiding out in their neighbourhood. This being said turning down a reward if offered one by the authorities would be stupid.

Originally Posted by kojax

But just back to the whole reward idea, you sometimes see pictures of peoples cats or dogs that have gone missing being put on a lamp post or tree, I always think this is especially sad when you see children putting these pictures up. But I don't know of anyone ever claiming one of these rewards, usually between £500 to £1000, for finding someones lost dog or cat ect..., but the way I figure it you'd have to be pretty heartless to do so. I would really like to think people could put up those pictures with just a phone number and that people would just have the decency to do the right thing without need of a reward.

What if you were exceptionally good at it, and you wanted to make a career of going around and finding peoples' pets? Trying to hold down a day job at the same time would reduce the number of successful finds.

If someone made a career out of it such as you suggest here, perhaps a pet detective say, then this might be acceptable to claim a reward for finding a pet from an adult provided they'd actually had to put some effort in. What is certainly not acceptable in my book is someone coming across a lost pet by accident and going to the owners house expecting to claim a reward, to me that just isn't on.

We are discussing rewards for criminals here not for pets, that could be another thread to be started. I just wanted to bring up when some agency/business offers rewards they should stick to what they offered or just not offer anything at all. I also agree that if a murderer was hiding out in your area and you knew about them it would be of your best interest to let the police know about them even if no reward is offered because it might be you or a member of your family that could be killed next, you never know.

Lying about paying a reward works just as well and is less expensive

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Lying about paying a reward works just as well and is less expensive

Perhaps in the short term but in the long haul people will soon get tired of being lied to about the reward not ever being paid and stop helping the police.

I'm always confused about how it relates to police who attempt to arrest the person. Do they get part of the reward to, even though they were doing what they did as part of their professional duties?

Does that carry a danger with it of police giving undue attention to crimes that have cash rewards attached to them?

Originally Posted by kojax

I'm always confused about how it relates to police who attempt to arrest the person. Do they get part of the reward to, even though they were doing what they did as part of their professional duties?

Does that carry a danger with it of police giving undue attention to crimes that have cash rewards attached to them?

Police do not get any part of the reward money.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Originally Posted by kojax

I'm always confused about how it relates to police who attempt to arrest the person. Do they get part of the reward to, even though they were doing what they did as part of their professional duties?

Does that carry a danger with it of police giving undue attention to crimes that have cash rewards attached to them?

Police do not get any part of the reward money.

Just a thought here but what is to stop a policeman who finds out where a criminal is, with a million dollar reward on his head, from getting family or friends to ring in with the perp's location and claiming the reward. I'm not suggesting all would adopt such an unethical practice but perhaps some might be tempted if it is possible to actually get away with.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Originally Posted by kojax

I'm always confused about how it relates to police who attempt to arrest the person. Do they get part of the reward to, even though they were doing what they did as part of their professional duties?

Does that carry a danger with it of police giving undue attention to crimes that have cash rewards attached to them?

Police do not get any part of the reward money.

Just a thought here but what is to stop a policeman who finds out where a criminal is, with a million dollar reward on his head, from getting family or friends to ring in with the perp's location and claiming the reward. I'm not suggesting all would adopt such an unethical practice but perhaps some might be tempted if it is possible to actually get away with.

Can't stop them all from being deceitful so that may happen as a rare case not the norm I'd think.

We could talk about the "rewards" paid to "informers". FBI covertly sets aside many millions annually for this purpose. Paid informants spill their guts, and if (generally) the info is accepted as legitimate, taxpayers unknowingly ante up. Disgusting idea, IMO.

Informers are very often criminals themselves. To provide information which is made-up is beneficial to them monetarily or plea-agreeably.

Paid informant methods assure publicly-seen law enforcement "success", whether truly so or not, thus furthering solid backing of police officials by the public.

7% of murders in America are "solved", with a suspect being tried.

Track records speak for themselves.

jocular