User:Patrick.ucciardo/sandbox

17th-century examples
Since after the Restoration criminality was increasing, the dissatisfaction with the penal system led to the implementation of the rewards. £10 were promised to anyone who gave information about a robber or burglar and a pardon was also granted to convicts able to provide evidences against their accomplices. Between 1660 and 1692 Parliament introduced a series of statutes that offered rewards up to £40. Under William III the rewards became a systematic element in the fight against crime, an alternative to erase the most dangerous threats to the community. The first example of permanent reward was in 1692, when £40 (together with the offender's horse, arms and money) were offered for the discovery and the conviction of offenders who committed serious property crimes: highway robbery, burglary and housebreaking, coining and other offences. The trial judges became fundamental to the administration of the rewards system because the statutes put them in charge of apportioning the reward among the persons who claimed to have participated in procuring the conviction. As it was written in the legislation of 1692 "...in case any Dispute shall happen to arise between the persons so apprehending any the said Thieves and Robbers touching their right and title to the said Reward that then the said Judge or Justices so respectively certifying as aforesaid shall in and by their said Certificate direct and appoint the said Reward to be paid unto and amongst the Parties claimeing the same in such share and proportions as to the said Judge or Justices shall seem just and reasonable"

18th-century examples
In the 18th century the government episodically offered rewards by proclamation: in 1720 a royal proclamation offered £100 for the unmasking of murderers or highway robbers, sometimes worth as much as £100. When a statutory reward overlapped a proclamation, prosecuting or convicting of a highway robber could be worth £140 a head (£100 under proclamation, £40 by statute), £240 for a pair or £420 for a three-person group. These were huge sums at the time when an artisan earned about £20 and a labourer less than £15. Supplementary reward was part of the administration of the law for six years, then with the death of George I it came to an end. After two years, in February 1728 a new proclamation reinstated the £100 reward by respecting the original terms. Private parties were also free to offer rewards in addition to rewards by proclamations, then this practice was taken up by governmental departments and local authorities. In 1716, Robert Griffith was indicted for stealing from Thomas Brooks, one silver watch, value £51, and one gold watch, value £18, from Mary Smith. She offered a reward of £15 to anyone who gave information about the robber. The reward was received by Mr. Holder, after he brought Mrs. Smith the silver watch that was stolen. In 1732 Henry Carey offered a reward of 2 guineas for the securing of Richard Marshall, and 3 more for his conviction. Marshall together with Mary Horsenail and Amy Mason were indicted for breaking and entering the house of Mr. Carey in Dorrington-street. They were also indicted for robbery. Marshall was secured by Mr. Parker, that received the 2 guineas reward as promised.

Rewards and Thief-Takers
In creating incentives to overcome criminality, the rewards system risked overincentivizing. This led to the development of the profession of thief-taker. Thief-takers were part of the criminal underworld, but they were seen as offering an advantageous service to the state. Victims of theft in London, facilitated by the circulation of newspapers, took advantage of advertising in order to recover their stolen goods. They offered a reward “with no questions asked”. Since prosecutors usually resorted to the legal system, they had to pay for the proceedings at the Old Bailey: though the offender was convicted, they often lost their goods forever. For this reason, prosecutors decided to bypass the legal system recovering their good by resorting to advertising. Thief-takers were the perfect intermediates between victims and offenders and received a portion of the reward offered. Jonathan Wild, a prominent figure of the underworld, successfully combined thief taking with the activity of simplifying the return of stolen goods by paying rewards to the thieves. . In the early 1720s he controlled London’s underworld but his activity became a threat to the community and the integrity of the penal system. In 1725 Wild was accused of stealing fifty yards (46 m) of lace, value £40, from the shop of a blind woman, Catherine Statham. He admitted accepting a reward of 10 guineas from Mrs. Statham for helping her to recover the stolen lace. He was acquitted of the first charge, but with Mrs. Statham's evidence presented against him on the second charge, he was convicted and sentenced to death.

Fictional representations
The figure of Jonathan Wild inspired the character of Mr. Peachum in The Beggar's Opera, a satirical ballad opera in three acts written in 1728 by John Gay. Peachum controls a large group of thieves, and is connected to the government and courts. Because of these connections, he can decide whether to allow a captured criminal to be hung (in that case he receives a reward) or to be released. In Scene II Peachum gives evidence against another member of his gang, Tom Gagg, in exchange for a reward of £40. Then in Scene IV Mrs. Peachum, Peachum’s wife, enters and inquires about Bob Booty, her favorite member of the gang. Peachum will accept a £40 reward for allowing Bob to be hung.