a dog-napping, an attempted murder and a debate about promises.
when lady gaga had two of her dogs stolen, she proclaimed a “no questions asked‘ $500,000 reward for her two stolen dogs.” independent. her offer was shocking on multiple levels. first, she reward did not address the capture of the dognappers who nearly killed her beloved and dedicated dog walker. second, people associated to law enforcement were concerned of the offer and its ramifications.
as the story goes, a woman returned the dogs and sought the reward. she now has been accused of being involved in the dognapping incident as an after the fact accessory.
in a daily news report, “unidentified sources told TMZ.com that police asked gaga to withhold payment of her $500,000 reward until detectives can confirm the woman who allegedly found and returned the dogs had no connection to the muggers who shot dog walker ryan fischer on Feb. 24.” dailynews.
it is reported that detectives later determined she [the woman who returned the dogs] had a relationship with one of the the accused’s father. cbsnews.com
the moral question presented is lady gaga said that this was a “no questions asked reward.” should it really matter that the recipient allegedly became part of the criminal operation post dognapping and attempted murder? if lady gaga, is a person of her word, shouldn’t she pay out? after all, it was a “no questions” act offer? certainly, anyone hearing of the offer knew that there was a high probability that the dogs would be returned by someone with a connection to the criminals. the police knew that of that likelihood and used it to secured arrests.
as an honorable person, shouldn’t she pay? otherwise, honesty and promises in this world will take big hit if she backs out of her deal.
if there another solution?
perhaps. as much as someone connected to the operation would be turning in the dogs, it is likely also that the reward money was going to be divided upon among all those involved. assuming this is the case, one suggestion would be to place the reward money in an escrow account. a determination could be made as to how the money was to be divided. those monies could be held pending the criminal proceedings.
in criminal processing, sometimes, there is an order of restitution to the victims. perhaps, the monies, which were intended to go those who perpetrated the crime, could then be ordered released and paid to lady gaga’s dog walker for payment of his extensive medical bills and lost wages. further, any additional monies could be perhaps awarded to him via a civil action against the accused. arguably, the portion that was to go to the woman who turned in the dogs would actually be paid to her.
are there any other solutions? what can they be? what principles should apply?
in sum, lady gaga created a moral dilemma which is actually important for us all. certainly, it is for all of us to debate.
if you would like to ready more blog posts, click here.