REWARDS FOR THE DETECTION OF CRIME. THE Whitechapel murders have
once more raised the -L. question of the policy of offering rewards for the detec- tion of crime. At the inquest on the woman murdered in Whitechapel, the foreman of the jury gave it as his opinion that a reward for the detection of the first murder would have prevented the two subsequent crimes. It could only have done so by leading to the immediate detection of the murderer, a very unlikely result indeed. There is, however, a wide- spread if not very reasonable desire that something should be done by the authorities to show unmistakably, what might well be taken for granted, that they are exerting themselves to the utmost for the detection of these appalling crimes.
The offer of a reward is the first thing to suggest itself, and it has accordingly been clamorously demanded by a section of the Press, too excited to consider the question calmly in all its bearings. If the Home Office has refused the application made to it, it is not, it is needless to say, out of apathy or indifference to the safety of the poorer inhabitants of London, but because, as stated in Mr. Matthews's letter to the White- chapel committee, experience has shown that such offers of reward tend to produce more harm than good. It is now some years since the authorities, after mature consideration, deter- mined to discontinue the practice, and nothing has since happened to show that they were wrong. The reasons which influenced them were gone into very fully at the time by Sir William Harcourt, the then Home Secretary, in a letter to the City authorities refusing to join with them in offering a heavy reward for the discovery of the miscreants who had attempted to blow up London Bridge. The weight of some of these reasons is undeniable, and it is clear in any case that rewards should only be offered under very special circum- stances, and when all other resources have been exhausted.
First, as to the police, it is eminently undesirable to offer men special inducements to discharge their primary and most important duties. The desire of distinction and the hope of promotion should, and when not interfered with, do prove sufficient motives to call out all their energies. The practice of offering rewards is calculated, not to make them more active in the detection of crime where they are given, but to make them less active where they are not. It exposes them to the temptation to exert themselves as little as possible, in the knowledge that if they are unsuccessful for a time, a reward will be forthcoming. This evil is inherent to the practice, and strong reasons are necessary to entitle us to disregard it.
As regards the general public, the same considerations apply to persons in possession of important information, who may be tempted to keep it back. As a matter of fact, one of the first effects of a reward is to make a number of people speak out who might more profitably have been paid to keep silent. The vain hope of obtaining the reward brings upon the police a mass of misleading information and false clues, which do more to retard than to advance the progress of the inquiry- Nor is it possible altogether to leave out of account the temptation that the offer of a large sum of money puts in the way of the needy and unscrupulous. The case of a con- spiracy to convict an entirely innocent man is conceivable, but it is not the most obvious danger. Where a man has been charged on a genuine suspicion, a prospective reward may lead witnesses to exaggerate their evidence against him, and even to supply missing links in the chain of proof. Whenever a miscarriage of justice has been caused in this way by the evidence of the police, it has almost invariably been due to an exaggerated desire to make a case, and prevent the guilty from slipping through their hands, rather than to any set purpose to convict the innocent. The danger is greater, both with them and with other witnesses, when a reward is to follow on conviction, and instances in which it has been felt are not unknown. Lastly, it was alleged by high authorities, when the practice was discontinued, that it had been found to elicit little information that was not otherwise available.
The above considerations make offering a reward at beet an undesirable means of discovering guilt, and justify the rule that it should only be resorted to in exceptional cases. Is the present one of these? The assertion, which in this instance we believe unfounded, that the offer would stimulate the activity of the police may be dismissed at once. It would be the strongest reason for refusing to make it. But would it be likely to make any one speak out who is now keeping back in- formation? We cannot see that it would. It might be other- wise if the outrages were the work of a gang whose members could betray one onother, or if there were grounds for think- ing that the murderer was being sheltered from the police. But here the crimes are so unhuman, and the horror and detestation they have aroused so universal, that it is difficult to admit the supposition. It looks rather as if the murderer had succeeded altogether in eluding suspicion.
The offer of a reward is objectionable in principle, and not likely in this case to advance the desired result. One thing might, however, be urged in its favour. It might tend to allay the excited feeling in the East End of London. It might remove the notion current among ignorant and panic-stricken people that the authorities are apathetic, or indifferent to
the treble horror which has sent a thrill through London such as it has not known for years. In Whitechapel the inhabitants are loudly declaring their conviction that it would lead to the detection of the criminal. Probably they would be unable to specify any good reason for believing so. It is the one thing which might have been done and has not been done ; and with the murderer still at large, they cannot bear to leave any expedient untried. As it is, a sum of money is actually being subscribed for the pur- pose by the residents in the district. The reward so offered is not likely to be more fruitful than that put forward under like circumstances by the Common Council for the detection of the dynamite criminals With most of the attendant evils, it has, however, one important advantage over Government action. It is at least as likely to be successful, and it does not involve the adoption by the authorities, in deference to panic, of an expedient which experience has taught them to condemn.
Previous page
