So many people here seem to have been born with a sheriff batch on them...I wonder if it might be cultural.
Originally Posted by CrystalViolet
Half the problem would be convincing them this is fo'reelz. I mean that stuff happens in the movies, not real life.
- Criminal gangs are estimated to make up to $500 million a year in ransom payments from kidnapping.
- More than 30,000 occur each year
- Average ransom payments are on the increase
- Over 70% of kidnaps are resolved by ransom payment
- According to CAAC-MRPO's kidnap statistics in 2005 the average amount paid for reported Kidnap for Ransom cases paid only $62,071.83 USD.
- Statistically speaking, less than 20% of kidnap cases go reported and that actual numbers estimated by experts indicate that the actual kidnap numbers range between 5 to 6 times the reported number of kidnap cases. This is largely due to distrust or participation to local law enforcement participation.
- Kidnapping for ransom is a common occurrence in various parts of the world today, and certain cities and countries are often described as the "Kidnapping Capital of the World."
So it's a 50/50 crapshoot even if I give them the money? I'd rather take control of the situation and hopefully increase my odds. I would do this:
Originally Posted by kyuuei
I would never, ever handle it on my own. I'd be recording every piece of evidence possible, including times of contact, preserving anything possibly touched by the kidnappers, etc.
I would re-trace the steps of my loved one to figure out the last place noted and seen, question people in the area s/he was last seen at, recording responses, etc. Once the trail turned cold, I'd notify the police and hand over all the evidence I could hand over. From there, I'd do what the police told me.
This involves me trusting the police to handle situations where I have been told to not allow the police to handle them, though. So it's hard to say how much my odds would increase.
Also, we've also got some psychology involved--in dilemmas like this one, people tend toward "not taking action and thus risking a life" rather than "taking action and thus risking a life" because they feel more responsible if they actively did something to cause the result. If I got the police involved and the kidnappers killed my loved one, there would be a large part of me that would regret it, even if it is seems like the more reasonable option.
Much like in your equally interesting "I want your freakin' leg" thread, I can't help but think of this from a decision analysis/"value" standpoint. There's some set of odds where I would rather just give the kidnappers the money--perhaps something like 90/10.
'Strangely' enough, the threat of poverty and the amount of money involved doesn't affect my decision--I've 'run the scenario' with, say, $10 and $100M, and my course of action remains the same.
I'd use the money to hire a scientist to invent a time machine so I could go back in time to rescue my loved one, thus saving the day!
Best plan yet.
Also, if there are so many small scale kidnappings and so few are reported, don't you see some kind of causal relationship here? No wonder its good business when hardly anybody calls the cops and everybody jst hands over the cash and hopes for the best. That's got to be an attractive business.
The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell A herring's blog Johari / Nohari