This is a general principle, with the Louvre case being a good recent example.
Written in the past tense as it is probably already too late for these items – but the principle could apply next time.
The stolen jewelllery from the Louvre’s main value is as whole items. However, the thieves to avoid being caught will need to break the items apart, sell jewels separately, melt down gold etc.
The thieves stand to make a fraction of what the jewellery would be worth to the state.
I suggest that in this, and similar cases where the items will most likely be destroyed by the thieves, amnesty and a reward should be offered immediately for the return of the items if they are not recovered by the police within 28 days. It should also be public knowledge that the offer of amnesty and a reward will be available after 28 days to discourage the destruction of the items.
Why 28 days?
-
The most likely time to catch the thieves is immediately after the robbery. The preferred outcome is that the jewelerry is recovered and the thieves are jailed. After 28 days the chance of recovery are slim.
How much should the reward be?
-
The reward should clearly exceed what the thieves could make by selling the jewellery broken apart, maybe 25% more than an experts best guess at the broken apart items black market value.
Does this incentivise future theft?
-
Yes, but not by a lot. If the thieves have managed to hold onto the jewelerrry for 28 days they have probably gotten away with it (although amateurs may have face risks fencing it). So the profit from stealing is only 25% higher than before, with slightly reduced risk. They could even make more money off a book deal or something.
When shouldn’t this apply?
-
this shouldn’t apply if the stolen item would not be destroyed by the thieves or if the destroyed item has a similar value to the state. E.g. stealing gold bars from Fort Knox have a similar value whether melted down or not. A stolen painting would not be destroyed and can theoretically be recovered years later.
-
this should also only apply to items of great significance/value.
What if violent crimes are committed when getting away/breaking in?
-
These would not be given amnesty, which unfortunately would mean the thieves would most likely not return the items if someone is killed. But, that would not be worse than the current situation and possibly incentivise thieves to try harder to avoid killing witnesses or similar.
tl;dr – if thieves steal something worth e.g. 50m but can only make e.g. 2m by selling it they should be offered 2.5m and amnesty to return it if they aren’t caught within 28 days.
Change my view!
