3 ms·

wow, that would be like having a bounty program that paid whistleblowers 10% of value of the theft for encouragement and was catching enough perps to act as a d

wow, that would be like having a bounty program that paid whistleblowers 10% of value of the theft for encouragement and was catching enough perps to act as a deterrent and lowered the overall crime rate and got victims 90% of their losses back, kind of an ex post insurance pool... ...and then figuring you could get victims 100% of their losses back by taking that 10% from the whistleblowers and sending them to the back of the line, and then coming back a year later and seeing that... ...while victims were getting 100% of their losses back when these crimes were discovered, very few of these crimes were being discovered, and using your impeccable logic concluding that the crime rate must have gone down! who needs whistleblowers!?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rsj_hn 5y ago
> and got victims 90% of their losses back We do not have a justice system in which the victim pays for the cost of investigating, prosecuting, and punishing offenders. All of that is paid by the general public. That does not mean there are no bounties -- there are, but the bounties are never paid by subtracting out amounts due victims. Changing that, so that victims would not be entitled to full restitution in order to help finance law enforcement would require changing a lot of laws, not just adding a whistleblower law. It would also overturn a lot of precedent. It would be a big change that a large majority of the public would oppose.
- fsckboy 5y ago
  > that a large majority of the public would oppose source?