Worst Series Finale Ever (Why it’s wrong to offer rewards for arrests & convictions)

So you think those “$25,000 Reward for Information Leading to Arrest and Conviction” posters are important for incentivizing witnesses to come forward? Maybe you’re right. But why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? . . . or something like that.

There was an infamous murder in 1964. Over the course of about 30 minutes, Kitty Genovese was stabbed and otherwise assaulted on a New York City street. It was later reported that 38 people witnessed the lengthy attack, yet not a single person called the police. This led to the psychological theory known as the Bystander Effect—each witness was aware there were plenty of other witnesses, so they all figured somebody else would call the authorities. With the rotary phones of the era, you can hardly blame them for not wanting to go through the hassle.

Jerry, Elaine, George, and Kramer went to jail for falling prey to a version of the Bystander Effect. Optimally, 911 dispatchers would get so fed up with onslaughts of calls about the same emergency that they start answering each call with “911 Emergency Response. We’re already aware of the overweight man being carjacked at gunpoint. What’s your emergency?” In CPR class, I was taught to point directly at someone, look them in the eyes, and yell for them to “Call 911!” Then do the same to another individual, telling them to “Get an AED!” This helps negate the possibility of the Bystander Effect by singling out the individual that must do each task. If it turns out 20 others call as well, so be it, but you’ve guaranteed at least one will.

The finale of Seinfeld taught us we need to act in a timely manner if we have information about a crime—not simply video tape the transgression while insulting the victim. Sometimes, though, an investigation comes to a standstill and a reward is offered. The financially motivated might reasonably conclude that if there’s a possibility of a reward tomorrow, it’d be foolish to give away valuable information for free today. Imagine if this became the de facto way of the world. The criminal justice system would slow to a snail’s pace, even compared to today’s lumbering standards.

We’d have to begin offering rewards straight away to combat this delay of justice. That’ll entice people to quickly and accurately come forward with any information they have for awhile. Pretty soon, though, folks will begin waiting even longer until the award is raised. Rinse and repeat. With this ever-increasing expectation for compensation, we’re left with some combo of a supply-and-demand system with an auction component. Once droves of people refuse to testify without excessive rates of compensation, I can even imagine the eventual need for a Supreme Court Ruling on the legality of subpoenas.

The legal system’s crawl becomes a standstill.

We’d quickly find ourselves in a gray area between criminal justice and free market capitalism. Obstruction of Justice would be a thing of the past.

“How does your client plead?”

“Not guilty, Your Honor. My client was merely holding out for a larger reward.”

Bargaining is an everyday part of our society. Excluding rare cases of eminent domain, a homeowner can’t be forced to sell their home to anyone offering just compensation, especially not in today’s booming housing market. We pit potential buyers against one another, driving up the price. Auctions often have a reserve price as a fail-safe. Our criminal justice system would become a “money talks” industry, as witnesses with key information name their price.

A brand new profession soon evolves.

“Hey there detective. Say—hypothetically—someone had information on that girl’s murder down by the river last night. What would it—you know, hypothetically—be worth to her kin for info about—again hypothetically—who—may or may not have—sliced her up with a 9.5” Phantom Series Kiritsuke Chef’s Knife? Hypothetically, of course. I’d think that info’d be worth around, say, $100K.”

The new Realtors of the criminal justice world haggle for a large reward for their client—earning every penny of that 20% fee.

With so much money to be made, people will come out of the woodwork with shots in the dark, trying their luck. There are people who make their living entering “No Purchase Necessary” contests, taking the cash equivalents when they win. What’s to stop folks from making false tips or accusations in a plethora of cases in the hopes that one will pan out for a huge score? With rewards at such staggering levels, a single payday could set someone up for life. Many less than reputable people may decide it’s well worth giving false testimony—and ruining the life of the innocent person they finger for the knife attack down by the river—to make some life-changing money.

Think about this from the other side of the coin. In our current environment, if someone comes forward with information they’ve had for some time only after a monetary reward is offered, should they not be interpreted as having obstructed justice? You may believe the 800-word extrapolation you’ve read thus far is more ridiculous and exaggerated than the Electoral College. And you’d be right. But hopefully you’ll agree that there’s at least a seed of truth there. The very idea that persuading someone to come forward with knowledge they legally and morally should have without compensation, has the potential to snowball into any number of undesired consequences.

Who knows, maybe Jerry and the gang were just planning to hold onto the video Kramer filmed until the reward for that valuable evidence was adequate. Truth be told, that might have made for a better premise for the Seinfeld finale.

So, you still think those “$25,000 Reward for Information Leading to Arrest and Conviction” posters are important for incentivizing witnesses to come forward? The offer of a reward may be all that’s needed to solve a case and get a conviction. Like eggs and omelets, sometimes you have to crack a checkbook to make an arrest. Justice by whatever means necessary. So, I guess, yeah, come to think of it . . . You’re Probably Right.

[045] June 23, 2021