$20,000 for Brody's killer: A logical look

The curious tale first surfaced a couple weeks ago, when The Sun published an article explaining that the County Board of Supervisors had voted to put up thousands in taxpayer dollars to fund a bounty on the head of the slayer of Brody, a by-all-accounts charming black Labrador retriever senselessly gunned down in Pioneertown.

At the time, Supervisor Dennis Hansberger proffered an interesting explanation for the unusual move, basically reasoning that 1) The dog's death was a tragic blow to the community and 2) That such a brutal execution-style murder (Brody was shot in the back of the head) could be the work of someone capable of killing humans.

Now, a new story surfaces. With Brody's killer still on the loose, an anonymous donor has now helped double the county's generous bounty, which now stands at $20,000.

Why is this worthy of discussion? Because it calls into service a helpful economic concept and some disturbing moral logic.

Let's start with the economic. Opportunity cost is a familiar term in economics which basically means that whatever money (or any resource, for that matter) is expended on cannot be used for other things. The other things are the opportunity costs.

Say, for instance, I choose to use $10,000 inherited from a relative on a new car instead of on college studies. The cost is the college studies I can't pay for, which, of course, most reasonable people would probably regard as a wiser investment.

In this case, the money the supervisors are prepared to pay to secure Brody's killer's capture cannot be used on an infinite number of things. Sheriff's equipment, summer jobs for a couple of troubled youths, some trips for people at the senior center, etc.

Perhaps more persuasively, it's money that is not being used to aid in the capture of the killer in any one of the many (sorry, I don't have a number here, but be assured there are plenty of unsolved killings every year) unsolved slayings of humans in this county. In fact, the supervisors virtually never put up bounty money for the capture of murderers.

Secondly, we come to the inescapable moral logic.

Hansberger has reasoned that Brody's killer may be capable of killing two legged as well as four legged life.

Sara Horowitz, the bereaved owner of Brody, was quoted today as saying, "Money talks, and I hope somebody will come forward."

A Pioneertown resident, Lisa Edwards, said, "There is fear because nobody can imagine what kind of a person could do this. We all know one another."

Let's go to Hansberger first, because he is the elected official, not a grieving dog owner or concerned resident. If the logic is that we must put up cash to catch a dog killer because he shows a prediliction to killing, even to killing a person, what does that say for the dozens of people running around our county any given year who actually did kill a person? Why no bounty money to nab them? The answers to this question, as any reasonable reader can see, range from merely nonsensical to repugnant.

Horowitz said "money talks." Indeed it does. She can rightfully be happy that her elected officials have deemed her tragedy worthy enough to put up the taxpayers' money. But what about any relative - mother, father, sister, daughter, son, etc. - of someone slain in this county whose killer ran loose and, alas, the supervisors didn't gallantly come forth with a handsome bounty? "Money talks" to them too, and it says something quite different.

Edwards spoke to the fear of the community that an obviously deranged dog executioner may be among them. Most reasonable people would agree, and find that prospect discomforting. But again, for this action of putting up bounties for Brodie to be vetted as wise and just, we must transmute it into other circumstances. How do the people in Westside San Bernardino, or in Pomona, or in any other place where unsolved killings of human beings have occurred feel about their communities? Probably pretty scared. Unfortunately, the money doesn't always stream in to fund bounties and ensure safety and justice.

That is all. I don't consider this an opinion blog, just a rational look at something that, when held up to the scrutiny of moral consistency, raises some disturbing questions.