International bounty hunters for war criminals: privatizing the enforcement of justice

Air Force Law Review,  Wntr, 2001  by Christopher M. Supernor

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

After an international bounty hunter has obtained custody of a fugitive war criminal, the UNSC should provide the international bounty hunter with the absolute right to cross international borders while en route to delivering custody of his prisoner. If an international bounty hunter presents a copy of the indictment and he has custody of the indicted individual, State officials should be required to let the international bounty hunter and his prisoner continue to their destination.

D. Should International Bounty Hunters be Required to Notify Local Law Enforcement Before Attempting an Arrest?

Unlike domestic bounty hunters, international bounty hunters should not be required to notify local law enforcement. In the United States, requiring domestic bounty hunters to notify local law enforcement before attempting an arrest is a reasonable requirement. Local law enforcement should always be willing and able to assist bounty hunters in bringing a fugitive to justice. In the international forum, a State might actually be protecting a war criminal. An indicted war criminal might actually be running the State and in control of the State's law enforcement. Accordingly, international bounty hunters should not be required to notify local enforcement before attempting to arrest a suspected war criminal.

E. Who Should Adjudicate Criminal and Civil Claims Against Bounty Hunters for the Use of Excessive Force?

International bounty hunters will be pursuing individuals who desperately want to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. Indicted war criminals who were prominent government officials or senior military commanders could even be protected by armed bodyguards. Accordingly, International bounty hunters will often need to use force or threaten the use of force in order to successfully apprehend an indicted war criminal.

An international bounty hunter should have the legal right to forcibly enter an indicted war criminal's home and to use a reasonable amount of force to arrest that individual. Furthermore, an international bounty hunter should also be entitled to forcibly enter the home of a third party when he reasonably believes that an indicted war criminal is present. International bounty hunters should also be permitted to use reasonable force against any third parties who attempt to obstruct the bounty hunter's efforts to apprehend an indicted war criminal. An international bounty hunter should only be permitted to use deadly force against an indicted war criminal or a third party in self-defense. Accordingly, an international bounty hunter could only use deadly force if he reasonably believed that he was threatened with grievous bodily harm.

Of course, a prudent bounty hunter will look for any way possible to capture an indicted war criminal with a minimal amount of force. After all, a violent confrontation not only threatens the welfare of a fugitive, it also threatens the welfare of the bounty hunter. International bounty hunters would also have a financial incentive to limit their use of force against an indicted war criminal if they could not collect their reward if the indicted war criminal died during an attempted arrest. However, the strongest incentive for international bounty hunters to limit their use of force against both indicted war criminals and third parties would be the possibility of a criminal or civil complaint against the bounty hunter for excessive use of force.