Death to capital punishment

I was struck by the story of Rais Bhuyian - a man who was blinded by Mark Stroman, who shot him (and killed his two friends) in the aftermath of 9/11.  Rais has been campaigning for a reprieve for the murderer who is set to be executed today.

I think he has a strong case.  Capital punishment is morally wrong - since when does two wrongs make a right?  The death penalty belongs in the last century.  We have moved on from our ancestors' barbaric principles of an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.  This is merely vengenance, not justice.

Of course, that is not to say our criminals should not be punished.  The alternative is to toughen up sentencing laws and ensure that they are not given parole after a measley 10 years or so.  This will serve the purpose of justice and what's more, serve as a detterrent.  I know that many of the proponents of capital punishment promote it on the grounds that it serves to reduce crime in the long-run.  This argument is at best unproved. The type of criminal that receives the death penalty will be serial murderers, rapists and terrorists, for example.  These types of people are psychopaths - they are evidently not rational nor stable beings.  Thus, a death penalty will not necessarily affect them.  Instead, it would only deter criminals who commit pettier crime - and I'm sure even the most ardent believers of the death penalty do not sanction killing Jim who steals from the sweet shop.  In this sense, therefore, capital punishment is ineffective.

So it's morally wrong and ineffective.  To make matters worse, there is chance that innocent people will be killed.  Our justice system is, and always will be, fallible.  Mistakes and miscarriages of justices will happen.  If the wrongly convicted criminal is serving a sentence in prison, they can be released if new evidence came to light.  If the the wrongly convicted criminal is in a grave, they cannot be brought back life - no, as advanced as our technology is, we have not got that far (yet?)  Any system that has the potential kill innocent people is a risk too far.  Death to capital punishment.

Under arrest

The police force is set to hit its lowest numbers since 2002 - 34,000 jobs will be lost, under government austerity measures.

This is a step backwards.  The state has a duty to protect its citizens.  With crime and especially, the fear of crime at alarmingly high levels, cutting police numbers compromises their duty to do so.  People deserve a strong police presence on their streets.  This reassures them - primarily because it acts as a deterrent but also because it sends the message that the government recognize that crime is a real issue and are taking active steps to combat it.

Inevitably, due to our unsustainable debt levels, the government needs to reduce public spending.  However, compromising our safety is not the way to achieve this. 

No showboating please, Parliament

Rupert Murdoch, after initially declining Parliament's request to attend the Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and sport, has accepted the invitation.

Next Tuesday (when the Murdochs and Rebekah Brooks are scheduled to give evidence) is an opportunity for Parliament to showcase themselves as an effective body that aims to throw light on this hacking scandal - not to show off.  Amidst huge public outrage and anger, it would be easy enough for MPs on the select committee to grandstand and look to ridicule the Murdochs.  Instead, they must show voters that Parliament works - by asking questions designed to further the investigation - and not merely humiliate the Murdochs as an end in itself.

Indeed, it is a chance for Parliament to vindicate itself: when the chief executive of Kraft refused to attend a  Parliamentary select committee, she argued that she would be met with "ill-founded allegations and insults."  On Tuesday, Parliament can show these claims were wrong.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

British people are said to be the most watched people in the world.  There are nearly 3 million CCTV cameras monitoring the UK.

Many human rights groups oppose what seems like an all-seeing State on the grounds of privacy.  They claim that individuals have a fundamental right to a private life.

Needless to say, this is true.  But, it is also true that they have the right to be safe when they make that journey home every night from work.  Rights can be seen as relative, as opposed to absolute.  Thus, when they conflict (as is evident with CCTVs), we must weigh them up.  I for one would rather be watched every step of the way on my journey home than be mugged.

Perhaps some would claim that this argument is redundant - CCTVs do not necessarily reduce crime.  Well, of course, CCTV cameras do not eradicate crime - but it does undeniably act as a deterrant for many would-be criminals.   The prospect of having your face pop up crystal clear on a police officer's computer is, I am sure, not one a criminal relishes.

In a perfect world, yes, the right to privacy would always be preserved.  But, unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.  There are criminals who want to steal our wallets, rob our homes and terrorise our country.  Our right to safety does mean that our privacy must be curtailed to some extent for the greater good.

The third great crisis of trust

First, it was the banks.  Then it was our MPs.  Now, it is the turn of the media.

Recent phone-hacking revelations, which has led to the closure of the News of the World, are very unsettling.  It would probably be wrong to see the actions of the individuals concerned as acting in a vacuum.  The scandal perhaps exposes the culture that led to it.  In an attempt by journalists to find the most exclusive stories, amidst the fierce competition in the media, they have overstepped the mark - and broken the law.

The media plays an integral role in our democracy.  Its role in scrutiny is certainly welcome.  They criticise government actions and expose our elected representatives when they behave illegitimately.  Unfortunately, for some, they have confused "scrutiny" with invading privacy for no reasonable justification and frankly, breaking the law.

Peaches and Lemons

Akerlof, Stiglitz and Spence jointly won a Nobel Prize in 2001 for their insights on asymmetric information.  They used the market for second-hand cars to illustrate the problem of when a buyer knows more than a seller: quality uncertainty.

There are two types of second-hand cars; the good, functioning cars (peaches) and the bad, defect-ridden cars (lemons).  However, the market for peaches and lemons are not separate.  Consumers cannot distinguish between the two for many reasons - they cannot access all the hidden mechanical parts, they are not car experts or they do not know the history of the vehicle.  Thus, they will only find out whether it is a peach or lemon after the purchase - which of course, is too late.

Therefore, the buyer’s best guess is the average quality.  The owner is only willing to pay what the average known quality of the car is.  This leads to a market failure - an information asymmetry has led to adverse selection.  The peaches, as a reaction to the lower price, will be unwilling or forced to leave the market.  Once the peaches start to withdraw, the proportion of lemons increase.  Thus, the likelihood of a consumer buying a lemon increases - yes, adverse selection in all its glory.

The problem here is that sellers, especially lemons, have a financial incentive to pass of their cars as “good”.  This introduces an element of risk for the consumer who risks overpaying at an unfair price for a lemon.  To coin the economic principle of Gresham’s Law, the bad cars drive the good cars out of the market - literally.

To overcome this problem, the information gap needs to be reduced.  To compensate for the lack of expertise, on the consumer’s behalf, an independent third party can be introduced to reveal the quality of the car.  Peaches can be given rubberstamp to indicate that they have been inspected and are road-worthy.
It may be impractical for every car dealer to attain this certified status in terms of the efficiency of the market.  In this case, both parties can agree a warranty - an assurance by the car dealer to the consumer that the car is functioning.  If this proves to be untrue, the consumer may seek compensation.

In the age of technology, the wonders of the internet can be harnessed.  Consumers can review their second-hand cars and car dealers to inform potential future consumers.  Thus, car dealers have an incentive to maintain their reputation - something which lemons cannot rely on.  This will solve the problem of adverse selection.  Nevertheless, this is practically tricky.  The nature of dodgy car dealers, the lemons, are that they are small dealers and elusive.  They only sell a few cars and keep moving location.  As a result of this and the fact that they are unofficial renders this internet based solution largely ineffective against this particular type of car dealer.

Democracy is right - invasion is wrong

Democracy is right but invasion to install democracy in authoritarian regimes are wrong.

Invasions are idealistic.  In a hypothetical situation, the plan would be to send a military force to country X to firstly, topple the regime and then secondly, oversee the introduction of free and fair elections.  Both these hurdles are insurmountable.  The first aim is difficult: regimes under Gaddafi and Mugabe are well-planted.  After possibly decades in power, the regime often command the loyalty of the army and are able to put a bloody resistance.  Even if the leader is removed, no doubt his cronies will replace him.

The second aim is even more difficult (if you manage to even get to that stage): removing an authoritarian regime by force creates a power vacuum.  If the authoritarian regime has been in power for decades (as is often the case), the country has no experience of democracy.  Political parties are non-existent and there are few established leaders.  The result? Civil war.  Competing factions emerge giving rise to insurgency, and guess what, more bloodshed.  This is a lose-lose situation; democracy is not effectively installed and lives are lost.  Even if democracy were installed, is it really worth the cost of thousands of lost lives?