On rewards and bounties

Sep 24, 2008 Editorial

After the massacre at Lusignan, a reward of $50 million was offered for information leading to the capture or (presumably) the neutralization of Rondell “Fine Man” Rawlins.

After he and another bandit with a reward on his head, Jermaine “Skinny” Charles, were run to the ground and eventually killed by a Joint Services team, many citizens, after their collective sigh of relief, wondered about the status of the reward. The President soon announced that the reward was to be shared between an obviously unidentified informant (one-third) and the Joint Services.

While this pronouncement did not raise any eyebrows amongst the general populace, who were obviously more concerned that they could now possibly venture out at night with less fears for their safety, it did elicit some criticism from the major opposition party.

They claimed that when rewards are offered to those in the police and the army to perform what is indubitably the job for which they are already paid, the government would be encouraging them to become “bounty hunters” who would be more interested in killing the wanted suspects rather than capturing them. This, they concluded, would initiate quite a dangerous trend.

It should be noted that the major opposition is not opposing the offering of rewards, per se, for the apprehension of suspected criminals. This practice, after all, is a standard procedure in many jurisdictions across the globe but especially in the USA. Generally, a wanted poster or bulletin is issued on the suspect with a photograph and detailed description of the individual and the crimes for which he/she is being sought.

The US FBI, for instance, has a “ten most wanted list” in circulation since 1950 and of the 449 who made it on the list, 421 were brought to justice. The rest either died on the run or have been cut from the list after the bureau no longer deemed them dangerous.

Of those apprehended, 131were caught, thanks to good old-fashioned snitching induced by the financial incentives of the rewards. Rewards are also offered internationally – Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden being two high profile examples – with the latter still outstanding.

However, the major opposition is actually making two contentions: that by accepting rewards, the law enforcement officials would firstly be tempted to become “bounty hunters” and secondly that they may shoot to kill rather than to effectuate capture of suspects, leading to trial. On the first point it is indisputable that in the overwhelming number of instances rewards are offered to civilians and outsiders who supply information or who may actually effect capture of the suspect themselves.

But the major opposition’s contention is apparently based on the assumption that the reward would be going to the crime fighters personally and thus giving them a personal motivation.

While not unknown, this direct monetary reward to crime fighters is fairly rare. In one recent case, policemen from mainland China were rewarded by the authorities of Taiwan for collaring an infamous criminal who had fled to that jurisdiction.

In another instance, a police officer on the New Delhi police force, who is about to enter the Guinness Book of World Records for nabbing the most criminals on the lam, accepted that he had collected some rewards.

But in our case it must be pointed out that the reward was to be passed on to the agencies or a special welfare fund.

The Joint Forces personnel would thus be benefiting only indirectly and it is unlikely that they would be corrupted by such oblique benefits. There is a far greater inducement that is present in all law enforcement agencies for officers to become “bounty hunters”, which was unremarked on – the incentive of personal promotion that accompanies a string of successes.

On the second point, our forces obviously need much more training in dealing with the new breed of criminals they are encountering. Unlike one armchair general, we still believe that a properly trained and equipped SWAT unit that is deployed to follow up on the intelligence provided by rewards and other methodologies is the way to effectuate more captures and less kills.

Latest News

On rewards and bounties

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 17th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

GPF arrests Presidential Guards by 48 runs as cricket action gets...

Superbet supports One Guyana 3×3 Quest

FIDE Master Drayton outclasses strong competition...

Wiltshire, Chris dominoes tourney set for March

Houston Sec’, New Central, Saints sent packing

Charles’ all-round performance helps EBDCA U23...

Features/Columnists

No immigrant should feel safe in America today

If Guyana’s President Ali is the “Zelensky of the Caribbean”, who is the Putin?

From Bharrat, the Blusterer to Howard, the Coward

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

On rewards and bounties

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 17th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]