Under what circumstances could a reward be placed for somebody "Dead or Alive"?

[Measure_for_Measure]

Wanted: Dead or Alive! Under what circumstances could the state or an individual place a reward for someone’s life? Or are such posters mostly a 20th century invention?

I seem to recall that GWBush referred to Old Western posters when speaking of Osama Bin Laden. But what was the last official reward offered explicitly for an alleged criminal’s remains? Sheesh, one would hope that nobody was killed due to a mistaken identity.

[cjepson]

Under English law at one time, a person could be declared an outlaw, meaning that they were outside the law, and thus could not seek protection from it. It was not against the law to kill, or do anything else to, an outlaw.

I don’t know that the U.S. ever had a formal process of declaring someone an outlaw in this way. However, on the frontier, things were kind of loose. Bandits living in the wilderness in frontier territory probably got declared outlaws by local sheriffs or whatever, meaning essentially the same thing as above – open season on the individual in question.

[Lumpy]

As the movie Unforgiven showed, “bounties” were sometimes nothing more than murder for hire. Slightly more legitimately, a reward might be offered for the capture of a known criminal with a lesser amount offered supposedly for confirmation that the criminal was dead. While the person offering the reward could plausibly deny that they intended to reward anyone for killing the fugitive, in practice it meant that if dragging an unwilling prisoner through hundreds of miles of wilderness was unfeasible, it provided an incentive to kill the fugitive rather than let them go.

[sweeteviljesus]

I believe that there is still an outstanding fatwa on the head of Salman Rushdie. I am not sure (but I think there is) a monetary reward attached to that.

[sailor]

Moqtada Al Sadr was decreed by Paul Bremer to be a criminal wanted “dead or alive” and the American military ordered the Spanish military (in whose zone he was) to get him “dead or alive”. The Spanish military refused to carry out the order saying it would cause an uprising (and probably rolling their eyes at the “dead or alive” language).

[DrDeth]

The USA is offering $50 million for information leading to Osama’s capture or death.

[Argent_Towers]

Riding a steel horse is definitely a prerequisite.

[Koxinga]

I thought the “dead or alive” thing was (is?) advertised exclusively by bail bondsmen. Bounty hunter drags the body of “Two Gun” Corcoran in by his heels and drops his load in front of the Justice ‘O Th’ Peace. Bail bondsman pipes up and says: “Now there’s th’ varmint that skipped town, I brung ‘im back as promised in th’ paper I signed springin’ him, now gimme my dad-gum hunnert dollars back!”

[Loach]

@DrDeth

The USA is offering $50 million for information leading to Osama’s capture or death.

Could you provide a cite? All official government information I see says something like “leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden”. Nothing says dead or alive. That was verbal rhetoric. Though to be fair I believe the reward was paid out for Saddam’s sons so the definition of apprehension may be broad.

[Derleth]

@Argent_Towers

Riding a steel horse is definitely a prerequisite.

Being Bad Company is necessary and sufficient.

Being Three’s Company means you’re wanted… well, by nobody, actually.

[Scumpup]

I’d say the takeaway point would be that dying isn’t a very good living at all.

[DrDeth]

@Loach

Could you provide a cite? All official government information I see says something like “leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden”. Nothing says dead or alive. That was verbal rhetoric. Though to be fair I believe the reward was paid out for Saddam’s sons so the definition of apprehension may be broad.

Osama bin Laden

Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, US government officials named bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda organization as the prime suspects and offered a reward of $25 million for information leading to his capture or death.[3][105] On 13 July 2007, this figure was doubled to $50 million.[106]

[Who_me_1]

@DrDeth

Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia
Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, US government officials named bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda organization as the prime suspects and offered a reward of $25 million for information leading to his capture or death.[3][105] On 13 July 2007, this figure was doubled to $50 million.[106]

That’s not what the FBI says, and this was one of the cites for that claim on Wiki.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

[Koxinga]

I wonder if there’s a factual answer to the OP’s question.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Thanks for the responses, gang.

Wikipedia has a nice treatment of outlawry. It was a severe punishment introduced by the Scandinavians in England during the 700-1100 era, designating “someone who because of criminal acts had to give up his property to the crown and could be killed without recrimination. The legal status of the outlaw became less severe over the course of the Middle Ages.” (dictionary)

There’s an 1898 tome in public domain on British Law, which provides greater detail. The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I - Frederick Pollock, Frederic William Maitland - Google Books

§ 8. Outlaws and Convicted Felons. [p-«9]

Outlawry. We must now glance briefly at certain classes of men who for their offences or their contumacy are deprived of some of those rights which their ‘lawful’ neighbours enjoy. Among them we reckon outlaws, convicted felons and excommunicates. The history of outlawry can be better told in connexion with the criminal law than in the present context. Outlawry is the last weapon of ancient law, but one that it must often use. As has been well said, it is the sentence of death pronounced by a community which has no police constables or professional hangmen1. To pursue the outlaw and knock him on the head as though he were a wild beast is the right and duty of every law-abiding man. ’ Let him bear the wolfs head2:’ this phrase is in use even in the thirteenth century. But as the power of the state and the number of its weapons increase, outlawry loses some of its gravity; instead of being a substantive punishment, it becomes mere ’ criminal process,’ a means of compelling accused persons to stand their trial. Just in Bracton’s day [1] it is undergoing a further degradation. In one place he says that recourse can be had to outlawry only when there is an accusation of one of those crimes which are punished by loss of life or member. This, no doubt, is the old doctrine, and his whole exposition of the effects of outlawry is in harmony with it. At a later time he has glossed his text:—there may, he says, be outlawry even when the offence is no felony but a mere transgressio, provided that it be a breach of the king’s peace2. This is important. In course of time our law is going to know two kinds of outlawry; with allusion to the analogous process of excommunication we might call them the greater and the less. A man outlawed on a charge of felony is as one attainted of that felony; while if outlawed for a misdemeanour or in a civil action (for in the course of the fourteenth century the process of outlawry spreads rapidly through many of the personal actions) he is in no such evil plight. But this distinction belongs to the future. The learning of outlawry as it is in Bracton is still the learning of outlawry for felony.

The outlaw’s life is insecure.In Bracton’s day he ought not Condition to be slain unless he is resisting capture or fleeing from it ; but outlaw. it is every one’s duty to capture him. And out in Gloucestershire and Herefordshire on the Welsh march custom allows that he may be killed at any time1. If knowing his condition we harbour him, this is a capital crime2. He is a ’ lawless man’ and a ’ friendless man*.’ Of every proprietary, possessory, contractual right he is deprived; the king is entitled to lay waste his land and it then escheats to his lord ; he forfeits his chattels to the king ; every contract, every bond of homage or fealty in which he is engaged is dissolved. If the king inlaws him, he comes back into the world like a new-born babe, quasi modo genitus, capable indeed of acquiring new rights, but unable to assert any of those that he had before his outlawry. An annihilation of the outlawry would have a different operation, but the inlawed outlaw is not the old person restored to legal life ; he is a new person4. The law of forfeiture and escheat for felony is taking an extremely severe form. It is held that the conviction or the outlawry ’ relates back ’ to the moment at which the crime was perpetrated, so that acts done by the felon in the interim are avoided3. It is held that the felon’s blood is corrupt and that a child born to him after the felony is incapable of inheriting, not merely from him, but from any one else3. Though we speak but briefly of outlawry, we are speaking of no rarity; the number of men outlawed at [p-61] every eyre is very large ;* ten men are outlawed for one who is hanged.**

I add emphasis and footnotes.

[1] Bracton: Henry de Bracton - Wikipedia (ca. 1210 - 1268) was an English jurist.

Around 1450 one Jack Cade called for reforms in England, saying that “the system of tax collection was unjust and extortive”. Rebellion ensued. The king eventually placed a Writ of Outlawry on Cade and his followers: “…with a price of 1000 marks put on his head ,and 5 marks for each head of his followers. Eventually Jack Cade was cornered and killed in a state of hunger and exhaustion. His quarters were displayed at Blackheath, Salisbury,Norwich and Gloucester as a warning to dissidents.” So we can trace a formal dead or alive warrent on a British citizen to as late as 1450.

Generally speaking when reasonable doubt is cast on wikipedia, I like to get a 2nd source. So the Osama Bin Laden example apparently remains unsubstantiated to this point.

I understand in civil court the concept of the outlaw extended to 1879 in England and the late 1940s in Scotland. But that’s an entirely different matter.

[Lumpy]

Interesting Measure for Measure. I notice that at least in the English case dead-or-alive is closely linked with outlawry, which is intriguing because the same terminology is often associated with the American west. (Bounties often being offered on men called or considered “outlaws”).

To offer another fictional example involving Clint Eastwood, there was The Outlaw Jose Wales, which raises another question: in the post-Civil War west, there were “renegades”- ex-Confederate soldiers who violated their oath of loyalty- as well as former pro-Confederate raiders who had conducted terrorist actions without benefit of uniform or commission. I wonder if some of the legends of outlawry arose from the fact that immediately after the Civil War such men would be considered unsurrendered rebels without legal protection.

[Loach]

@Who_me_1

That’s not what the FBI says, and this was one of the cites for that claim on Wiki.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

That is what I was going from when I made my comment. I have not seen any other cites from the government that state differently. But like I said, Saddam’s sons were certainly not brought to trial and the reward was paid. The soldiers that captured Saddam were not eligible to get the reward for him.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Followup questions:

What was the latest award offered for someone’s remains? This practice has apparently carried to the present day: Saddam’s sons appear to be an example by the US; Salmon Rushdie also has a price on his head.

Ok then, what was the latest award offered for someone’s remains, when the fugitive was a resident of the country offering the reward? So far, we have the 1450 example, though I trust we can find some specific US examples from the 1800s.

What was the latest award offered for somebody not involved in armed conflict or rebellion? A: Salmon Rushdie.

What was the latest award by a democratic country that practices the rule of law offered for somebody not involved in armed conflict or rebellion? Again, a specific example from the Old West would help here.

There appear to be a lot of “Wanted Dead or Alive” posters that are 20th century fabrications.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Roundup from the web:

The army field manual expressly forbids the posting of bounties for someone’s death:

31. Assassination and Outlawry

HR provides:

It is especially forbidden * * * to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army. (HR, art. 23, par. (b).)

This article is construed as prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy “dead or alive”. It does not, however, preclude attacks on individual soldiers or officers of the enemy whether in the zone of hostilities, occupied territory, or elsewhere.

Furthermore, this language can be traced to the 1940 Army Field manual:
30. Treachery, It is especially forbidden * * * to kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army (HA., art. 23, par. (b)).
31. Assassination and outlawry.-The above article is construed as prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy “dead or alive.” Offenders have no claim to be treated as combatants, but should be tried as criminals.

Bounties were offered for the scalps of Native Americans in the 1800s: Little Crow died under such a scheme in 1863.

During the war of 1812, the British army offered bounties on American scalps according to this breathless 1878 history of Kane County, Illinois.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Lumpy

To offer another fictional example involving Clint Eastwood, there was The Outlaw Jose Wales, which raises another question: in the post-Civil War west, there were “renegades”- ex-Confederate soldiers who violated their oath of loyalty- as well as former pro-Confederate raiders who had conducted terrorist actions without benefit of uniform or commission. I wonder if some of the legends of outlawry arose from the fact that immediately after the Civil War such men would be considered unsurrendered rebels without legal protection.

You might be interested in the tale of Jesse James:

@Wikipedia

Already a grand celebrity when he was alive, he became a legendary figure of the Wild West after his death. Recent scholars place him in the context of regional insurgencies of ex-Confederates following the American Civil War rather than a manifestation of frontier lawlessness or economic justice.[1]

The James brothers, Frank and Jesse, were Confederate guerrillas during the Civil War, during which they were accused of participating in atrocities committed against Union soldiers. After the war, as members of one gang or another, they perpetrated many bank robberies which often resulted in the murder of bank employees or bystanders.

Jesse James was eventually shot in the back of the head by one Robert Ford, who thought live capture was impractical. Ford surrendered to the authorities, wired the governor to claim a reward, was tried and convicted of murder, sentenced to death and then granted a full pardon – all on the same day! James’ killer later made a decent living on the theater circuit, re-enacting the murder with considerable flair.