If a plumber wanted to plant weed in your house (to get a reward like that proposed above), they would need to acquire the weed. It only makes sense to acquire the weed if the price to acquire is less than the reward. It doesn't matter whether the plumber smokes or not.
Good point, but Cableshaft had the right idea of it. I mean, at no point in the plumber scenario does the plumber have to actually part ways with his weed: "Sorry officers, I guess the guy must have moved his stash after he realized I must have seen it!" He didn't take custody of the drugs he's reporting, he just took a picture / called it in.
In the dry-cleaner scenario they obviously wouldn't have a great excuse for missing dime bags since they'd have custody of it.
REGARDLESS, I think the point isn't about "setting the right price" or comparing scenarios in which planting evidence is easier / harder, it's that ANY price is going to enable perverse-incentives for bad actors in at least some situations.
Comments
If a plumber wanted to plant weed in your house (to get a reward like that proposed above), they would need to acquire the weed. It only makes sense to acquire the weed if the price to acquire is less than the reward. It doesn't matter whether the plumber smokes or not.
Good point, but Cableshaft had the right idea of it. I mean, at no point in the plumber scenario does the plumber have to actually part ways with his weed: "Sorry officers, I guess the guy must have moved his stash after he realized I must have seen it!" He didn't take custody of the drugs he's reporting, he just took a picture / called it in.
In the dry-cleaner scenario they obviously wouldn't have a great excuse for missing dime bags since they'd have custody of it.
REGARDLESS, I think the point isn't about "setting the right price" or comparing scenarios in which planting evidence is easier / harder, it's that ANY price is going to enable perverse-incentives for bad actors in at least some situations.