All these options could be included at an extra cost to place the bounty.
1.) Add an option so that the player clearing bounty takes/reduces PvP rating -- no matter the level player clearing the bounty.
2.) Add an option that clearing bounty can also reduce Prestige value.
3.) Add an option, "Pick Pocket", than can take gold from the bountied player's Bank -- up to 1% or 50,000, whichever is greater. The Pick Pocketed gold is lost, it doesn't go to a player. OR, it could be added to the "Gods" at the temple!
1) Players who participate in the ladder are the only ones gaining rating, from each other, not from non-ladder players. They lose and gain rating all the time, thats how the ladder works. They can lose rating on the board as it is, as long as the bonty hunter is also playing the ladder and is within his range. A lot of players who PvP don't play the ladder. They have nothing to gain or lose when it comes to rating.
If you're suggesting this in light of the new PvP change suggestions, the point of those are not to prevent or discourage PvP, but to make it a non-abusable system with real pvp and real risk. A key change is the removal of transferrable rating (like it is now). If the hunter can gain rating from bounties while the target loses rating like you're suggesting, its transferrable.
2) Players who participate in PvP actively don't usually do it for prestige. Its just a small "reward", making up for a fraction of the XP risked and the stamina spent, and put in place to encourage more PvP. you have to hit 46 players or clear 46 bounties to get the full 10% for just an hour. By reducing prestige value, we might as well just remove prestige all together. We did quite well without it, and its insignificant enough already.
3) Similar ideas have been suggested in the past, and it sounds like great fun, though I'd like it to work on everyone, not just bountied players. But like others have already said, it removes the point of the very expensive bank deposit upgrades, and I don't see how it is logical or fair that one player should be prevented from having a 100% safe bank just because he participates in PvP. How about we do this to players who only level instead? Punish them for not actively participating in part of the game? No? I didnt think so.
I find all your ideas to be either pointless or discouraging to participation in PvP. You're looking for even more ways to avoid and punish pvp further, on the cost of game quality and experience, even if that may not be your intention. I have been playing this game for almost 4 years and we have never had more ways to escape PvP. I believe those changes are a big part of what has made players more hostile to PvP, asking for more protection instead of accepting it as a part of the game, and the last thing we need is to make it worse.