IT OFTEN IS AN INCENTIVE FOR UNSCRUPULOUS OFFICERS TO CONVICT INNOCENT
PERSONS--RULE REGARDING DIVORCE CASES.
I do not believe in rewards, and in all my long career, have made it a
rule to never work for, or receive one, no matter how great the amount
offered for the arrest and conviction of the guilty party, or
parties--this being the usual way that the heading of a reward is
written.
Nor do I believe in or engage in procuring evidence in divorce cases.
However, I can see no objection to the offering of a reward for the
apprehension or capture of a fugitive who is known to have committed a
certain crime against the law, and for whom a warrant has been issued,
and I believe the detective, or any other person, who makes the arrest
would have the right to accept such reward.
Where the reward is offered for the arrest and conviction of some
person, for a crime that has been committed, and the guilty party, or
parties, is unknown, I, from personal experience, have been led to the
belief that the offering of a reward, especially a large reward, is an
incentive for unscrupulous people, and especially unscrupulous officers
of the law, to fasten the crime on some unfortunate, or perhaps some
dishonest or undesirable citizen, which can be found in almost any
community, in order to obtain the reward. These unfortunate people are
easier to convict of a crime than persons who have always borne a good
reputation. Then, again, the offering of a reward for criminals whose
identity is unknown, tends to keep a certain class of people from
divulging facts that they may know, which might, if properly utilized,
lead to the identity, arrest and conviction of the perpetrators of the
crime for which the reward was offered.
To make it more plain, when a crime has been committed, and no reward is
offered, this same class of people are more liable to "come out from
under cover" and tell what they know about the facts in their
possession, believing them of no material value to the officers engaged
in running down the culprit.
Experienced detectives have been very often handicapped by reason of a
reward having been offered, and, for this reason, I have always made it
a rule to pay no attention to rewards.
While I am satisfied that it is, in many cases, necessary for the
purification and preservation of society, to thoroughly investigate
divorce cases as it is to apprehend and convict people who have
committed a theft or other crimes, by reason of the fact that there are
so many crooked and unscrupulous men, who claim to be detectives, and
who make the divorce business their specialty, in order to elevate
myself and my service from the level of this class of people, I formed a
rule, at the beginning of my career, not to have anything to do with
divorce cases. This rule I have always rigidly enforced.