Thanks for the replies, id like to add that most answers have focused on the legality of a wanted dead or alive. It has been determined that it does not amount to state scantioned murder, rather the authority to bring someone in by any means necessary to stand trial (or continued jail time if they were an escapee).
The bounty would be paid if they were dead already or if they were killed in the process of resisting arrest.
Whilst i accept that modern bounties still exist, as shown by FBI most wanted lists these bounties offer a reward for information leading to an arrest and as such i dont consider them to be wanted dead or alive bounties.
Thanks to the mod team, this has been an unusual question in the way it blew up and required a lot of moderation to keep it on topic.
Hello everyone,
In this thread, there have been a large number of incorrect, speculative, or otherwise disallowed comments - including many asking about the deleted comments, which merely compound the issue - and as such, they were removed by the mod-team. Please, before you attempt answer the question, keep in mind our rules concerning in-depth and comprehensive responses. Answers that do not meet the standards we ask for will be removed.
Additionally, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with off topic conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread. Thank you!
Edit: I just removed a comment that was a perfectly legitimate follow up question asking:
Was a wanted dead or alive bounty a real thing? I know it's popular in movies but it seems like just authorizing murder
But which was downvoted to -26. That is really NOT something we like to see here. Nothing is wrong with asking relevant follow ups! I removed it 'cause it was terribly unfair to him to be getting those downvotes, hence restating it here for him. I realize this thread is hitting a lot of people's front pages, and that people who are not used to the standards here are not too pleased coming in and seeing the sea of "[deleted]", but don't take that frustration out by downvoting the poor guy who just was asking a question (This old thread might be relevant for it). There is a perfectly good mod post right here you can vent your spleen on. And to everyone, just have a little patience. Good answers take some time to come about!
Edit 2: Thank you. I've since restored it and y'all seem to be doing the right thing.
Was a wanted dead or alive bounty a real thing? I know it's popular in movies but it seems like just authorizing murder.
(Hopefully) relevant follow-up: Were there ever dead or alive bounties within the actual United States, or were they only in the territories that had not yet achieved statehood?
The answer to this question is theoretically within my wheelhouse -- being one of just a few law guys here, and a prosecutor in real life. However, it's one I wouldn't begin to know how to answer. Thankfully, this is also one of the rare cases where a tough question has been answered previously by someone with... abnormal expertise. Here, /u/kingconani, who should really get around to just applying for flair already, says that dead-or-alive bounties didn't really mean what they said, where they existed at all. Instead, they were bounties for live delivery of a suspect -- like you see rewards for tips leading to arrest today, except perhaps with justified detention.
To answer a question raised by /u/gameshot911, this could potentially raise due process issues. Due process, eh? Now the rubber band's on the other claw!!! (To non-Futurama fans: "That I can talk about!")
In an early Supreme Court decision, the court appeared to bless abnormal, even extralegal bounty hunting tactics. Said the Court in Taylor v. Taintor, 83 U.S. 366 (1873):
When bail is given, the principal [Prisoner] is regarded as delivered to the custody of his sureties [the agents of his bail bondsmen]. Their dominion [the bondsman's] is a continuance of the original imprisonment. Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge; and if that cannot be done at once, they may imprison him until it can be done. They may exercise their rights in person or by agent. They may pursue him into another State; may arrest him on the Sabbath; and, if necessary, may break and enter his house for that purpose. The seizure is not made by virtue of new process. None is needed. It is likened to the rearrest by the sheriff of an escaping prisoner. In 6 Modern [a treatise] it is said: "The bail have their principal on a string, and may pull the string whenever they please, and render him in their discharge." The rights of the bail in civil and criminal cases are the same.[*] They may doubtless permit him to go beyond the limits of the State within which he is to answer, but it is unwise and imprudent to do so; and if any evil ensue, they must bear the burden of the consequences
From this we learn that in some cases bounty hunters connected to a bail bondsman could go beyond the letter of the law, and arrest a prisoner who has skipped bail in situations where the government couldn't. This relaxation of the strict requirements of due process emerges, apparently, from the contractual nature of the bail arrangement. See State v. Gonzalez-Fernandez, 612 S.E.2d 148 (N.C. 2005). Where it continues today, this is a state-by-state rule, and seems to give some legal force, even today, to the notion of bounty hunters operating based on "wanted" posters depicting prisoners sought "dead or alive." It also squares the whole thing with "due process." Sort of. But this sort of arrangement is limited, even where it exists, to the case of a petitioner who skips bail in a state that allows this type of thing.
Elsewhere, I've come upon a doctrine, called the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, which holds that "the power of a court to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court's jurisdiction by reason of a 'forcible abduction.'" Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952). There the Court held that a defendant blackjacked and abducted in Chicago by state offices, and haled to Michigan for trial, couldn't raise his abduction as a defense to prosecution. The Court also appeared to opine, though, that the Michigan authorities had violated at least a federal law by abducting the prisoner.
This suggests to me that "wanted" posters with bounties for alive prisoners might have been a thing, and might still be, especially in the context of bail. But it doesn't immunize the bounty hunter for crimes committed during the arrest.
TL;DR: "Dead or alive" posters didn't mean what they said, on the strength of a comment from another post. Abduction to facilitate prosecution -- bounty hunting -- continues to this day, but might make a criminal out of the bounty hunter too.
Related question - What was the legality of a "dead of alive" bounty? Wouldn't that be contrary to the "due process" clause in the Constitution? How could a sheriff or governor issue such warrants?
