Supposedly, banks lend 10 times (or more) what they have on deposit. Yet in June last year, it was estimated that total UK consumer borrowing (mortgages, loans and credit cards) stood at £1.444 trillion, and in October savings and deposits reportedly totalled £1.17 trillion - a ratio of c. 1.2 to 1.
By contrast, total U.S. household debt at the beginning of last year was estimated at $14.4 trillion, and in October the Mises Institute reckoned the True Money Supply to be $5.5 trillion, a ratio of around 2.6 to 1.
On the face of it, the American consumer is in twice as dire a state as his British counterpart.
I expect that's an oversimplification - but simplicity is in very short supply. I'd like to understand more, but I can't find reliable, user-friendly data on where all the money and debt is. There's far too much secrecy, complexity and obfuscation in this business.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Gold overpriced?
Gold's price since President Nixon closed the gold window on Aug 15, 1971 has been generally higher than in the era up to then, but still very variable. If we adjust it for inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in the USA, and take September 1971 as being a "1", the mean and median values since then are of the order of 2.8 - 2.9.Currently the gold/CPI ratio is about 4, which is somewhat above trend, though nowhere near the spikes of the early 80s. So I'd regard gold's price as a bit high for getting in now, unless you're speculating, which is not my game. But if you got in 9 years ago, well done, and I guess you'll want to hold for some time yet.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
British jobs for foreign workers
Wanted:738 foreign (EEC domiciled) labourers, for casual work in comfortable and extremely well-appointed factory premises. Existing postholders need not apply.
Why has this contract become available?
We are seeking workers who will perform their duties solely for the official remuneration offered, without the payment of additional incentives from third parties, such as "consultancy fees" etc. The management feels that it is important to make a fresh start in order to establish a new working culture, without contamination from previous elements.
Duties
Reading and revising proposed laws. A good command of English is essential; it is therefore expected that applicants will have been educated abroad.
Legal revisions must be conducted solely and entirely on the merits of each case, for the benefit of the nation as a whole, without fear or favour.
Days worked per year / holidays
This varies, but in 2007-2008 the number of days the factory was open was 148.
Hours of work
From the following start times until 10 - 11 p.m., but sometimes later and occasionally throughout the night:
Mondays and Tuesdays from 2.30pm
Wednesdays from 3pm
Thursdays from 11am
some Fridays (10 in 2008 - 2009); on these days, from 10am
On average, 6 hours 46 minutes per session (in 2007-2008).
Thus, hours worked per year = c. 1,002, equivalent to less than 21 weeks at the EU maximum of 48 hours/week.
BUT adjusted for average attendance figures (see below), actual time worked per worker in 2007-2008 was the equivalent of 11 weeks 2 days per year.
Sick leave
N/A. But attendance is voluntary, and average attendance in the last 3 years was c. 54%.
Minimum attendance by the workforce as a whole is 3 workers per shift (30 on days when the product is due to roll off the assembly line).
Job security
Extremely good. Under current terms, workers cannot relinquish their position once appointed, even if they wish to; but they may take indefinite leave of absence without notice or permission. One current worker has stayed away from the workplace since 2001.
Pay
£335.50 per shift, plus other expenses.
Outside employment when not in attendance at the factory is permitted, provided that it has no bearing or influence whatever on the worker's primary duties at Lawmaking plc.
Important note
Applicants must be prepared to endure some initial unpopularity from protectionist malcontents (many apparently disguised as Santa Claus), but may be assured of the full protection of the law.
Davos: inaugural address
Sorry, I keep getting it confused with Davros. One has a plan to take over the world with the aid of heavily-protected, ultra-aggressive, lunatic invertebrates, and the other...
DIY? GSI, say I.
Doing the rounds on the Internet...
DRILL PRESS: A tall upright machine useful for suddenly snatching flat metal bar stock out of your hands so that it smacks you in the chest and flings your beer across the room, denting the
freshly-painted project which you had carefully set in the corner where nothing could get to it.
WIRE WHEEL: Cleans paint off bolts and then throws them somewhere under the workbench with the speed of light. Also removes fingerprints and hard-earned calluses from fingers in about the time it takes you to say, 'Oh sh*t '
ELECTRIC HAND DRILL: Normally used for spinning pop rivets in their holes until you die of old age.
SKILL SAW: A portable cutting tool used to make studs too short.
PLIERS: Used to round off bolt heads. Sometimes used in the creation of blood-blisters.
BELT SANDER: An electric sanding tool commonly used to convert minor touch-up jobs into major refinishing jobs.
HACKSAW: One of a family of cutting tools built on the Ouija board principle. It transforms human energy into a crooked, unpredictable motion, and the more you attempt to influence its course, the more dismal your future becomes.
VISE-GRIPS: Generally used after pliers to completely round off bolt heads. If nothing else is available, they can also be used to transfer intense welding heat to the palm of your hand.
OXYACETYLENE TORCH: Used almost entirely forsetting various flammable objects in your workshop on fire. Also handy for igniting the grease inside the wheel hub out of which you want to remove a bearing race.
TABLE SAW: A large stationary power tool commonly used to launch wood projectiles for testing wall integrity.
HYDRAULIC FLOOR JACK: Used for lowering an automobile to the ground after you have installed your new brake shoes, trapping the jack handle firmly under the bumper.
BAND SAW: A large stationary power saw primarily used by most shops to cut good aluminum sheet into smaller pieces that more easily fit into the trash can after you cut on the inside of the line instead of the outside edge.
TWO-TON ENGINE HOIST: A tool for testing the maximum tensile strength of everything you forgot to disconnect.
PHILLIPS SCREWDRIVER: Normally used to stab the vacuum seals under lids or for opening old-style paper-and-tin oil cans and splashing oil on your shirt; but can also be used, as the name implies, to strip out Phillips screw heads.
STRAIGHT SCREWDRIVER: A tool for opening paint cans. Sometimes used to convert common slotted screws into non-removable screws and butchering your palms.
PRY BAR: A tool used to crumple the metal surrounding that clip or bracket you needed to remove in order to replace a 50 cent part.
HOSE CUTTER: A tool used to make hoses too short.
HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.
UTILITY KNIFE: Used to open and slice through the contents of cardboard cartons delivered to your front door; works particularly well on contents such as seats, vinyl records, liquids in plastic bottles, collector magazines, refund cheques, and rubber or plastic parts. Especially useful for slicing work clothes, but only while in use.
DAMM-IT TOOL: Any handy tool that you grab and throw across the garage while yelling 'DAMM-IT' at the top of your lungs. It is also, most often, the next tool that you will need.
DRILL PRESS: A tall upright machine useful for suddenly snatching flat metal bar stock out of your hands so that it smacks you in the chest and flings your beer across the room, denting the
freshly-painted project which you had carefully set in the corner where nothing could get to it.
WIRE WHEEL: Cleans paint off bolts and then throws them somewhere under the workbench with the speed of light. Also removes fingerprints and hard-earned calluses from fingers in about the time it takes you to say, 'Oh sh*t '
ELECTRIC HAND DRILL: Normally used for spinning pop rivets in their holes until you die of old age.
SKILL SAW: A portable cutting tool used to make studs too short.
PLIERS: Used to round off bolt heads. Sometimes used in the creation of blood-blisters.
BELT SANDER: An electric sanding tool commonly used to convert minor touch-up jobs into major refinishing jobs.
HACKSAW: One of a family of cutting tools built on the Ouija board principle. It transforms human energy into a crooked, unpredictable motion, and the more you attempt to influence its course, the more dismal your future becomes.
VISE-GRIPS: Generally used after pliers to completely round off bolt heads. If nothing else is available, they can also be used to transfer intense welding heat to the palm of your hand.
OXYACETYLENE TORCH: Used almost entirely forsetting various flammable objects in your workshop on fire. Also handy for igniting the grease inside the wheel hub out of which you want to remove a bearing race.
TABLE SAW: A large stationary power tool commonly used to launch wood projectiles for testing wall integrity.
HYDRAULIC FLOOR JACK: Used for lowering an automobile to the ground after you have installed your new brake shoes, trapping the jack handle firmly under the bumper.
BAND SAW: A large stationary power saw primarily used by most shops to cut good aluminum sheet into smaller pieces that more easily fit into the trash can after you cut on the inside of the line instead of the outside edge.
TWO-TON ENGINE HOIST: A tool for testing the maximum tensile strength of everything you forgot to disconnect.
PHILLIPS SCREWDRIVER: Normally used to stab the vacuum seals under lids or for opening old-style paper-and-tin oil cans and splashing oil on your shirt; but can also be used, as the name implies, to strip out Phillips screw heads.
STRAIGHT SCREWDRIVER: A tool for opening paint cans. Sometimes used to convert common slotted screws into non-removable screws and butchering your palms.
PRY BAR: A tool used to crumple the metal surrounding that clip or bracket you needed to remove in order to replace a 50 cent part.
HOSE CUTTER: A tool used to make hoses too short.
HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit.
UTILITY KNIFE: Used to open and slice through the contents of cardboard cartons delivered to your front door; works particularly well on contents such as seats, vinyl records, liquids in plastic bottles, collector magazines, refund cheques, and rubber or plastic parts. Especially useful for slicing work clothes, but only while in use.
DAMM-IT TOOL: Any handy tool that you grab and throw across the garage while yelling 'DAMM-IT' at the top of your lungs. It is also, most often, the next tool that you will need.
Michael Panzner interview
Some salient points in Michael's answers:
- The crisis could continue for another decade;
- investors will have to tread carefully and consider the risk of dealing with others;
- dividend yields could increase 2 - 4 times (suggesting that current stock prices could halve or quarter);
- after some more deleveraging during this year, it may be useful to accumulate precious metals
Also linked on AN is a story about Warren Buffett's firm insuring third parties against a long-term market drop. Berkshire Hathaway has taken $4 billion in bets; are they right? Or are they right only in the sense that nominal prices will hold, while inflation will mask the real reduction in value?
The banking crisis: did we have a choice?
Could any of the leading nations have retained their moral fibre during the monetary inflation of the last decade and more? Wouldn't prudent, restrained lenders have lost out to foreign sellers of "liar" and "fog a mirror" loans? Wouldn't the currency have risen and crippled exports? Could considerations like this form part of the "don't shoot me" defence of our busted banks and discredited politicians?
Or would it have been a trial by fire, where the virtuous are rewarded at the end? Denninger: "It is also increasingly clear that there are literally hundreds of midsize and smaller banks that are perfectly fine. They did not lever up, they did not write a bunch of crap commercial or residential construction paper that cannot be serviced and they most certainly did not drink the KoolAid of securitized synthetic garbage debt. Even in bad economic times traditional banking is a very profitable business - so long as you lend money to people who can pay you back or you have sufficient collateral so that if they default you don't lose your shirt."
In which case, the original offence of reckless finance has been compounded by the failure to punish it. The bailouts whisk away the deserved reward of the good, and teach a hugely damaging lesson to all onlookers: you can Get Away With It.
Of course, you can't - or rather society can't, though individuals will. And when injustice finally falls, it will take down with it many of the good, the poor and the powerless.
Or would it have been a trial by fire, where the virtuous are rewarded at the end? Denninger: "It is also increasingly clear that there are literally hundreds of midsize and smaller banks that are perfectly fine. They did not lever up, they did not write a bunch of crap commercial or residential construction paper that cannot be serviced and they most certainly did not drink the KoolAid of securitized synthetic garbage debt. Even in bad economic times traditional banking is a very profitable business - so long as you lend money to people who can pay you back or you have sufficient collateral so that if they default you don't lose your shirt."
In which case, the original offence of reckless finance has been compounded by the failure to punish it. The bailouts whisk away the deserved reward of the good, and teach a hugely damaging lesson to all onlookers: you can Get Away With It.
Of course, you can't - or rather society can't, though individuals will. And when injustice finally falls, it will take down with it many of the good, the poor and the powerless.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Not Chicken Little: the sky could really be near falling
Jesse is not an air-filled doomster, yet here he has become really sombre. Pound heading for parity with the Euro, major banks insolvent, action ineffectual, hush-hush all around so the common people don't realize the gravity of the situation. It's rumour, but rumour that Jesse, clearly an experienced financial man, finds plausible.
Like I said, you've had your warning. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Like I said, you've had your warning. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Money and life
The previous post is a summary of Brad Setser's views on China and the dollar. What with the oil price coming down and the trade deficit reducing because of declining demand, it seems reassuring for Americans. But Michael Panzner also returns to one of his themes, the inflationary phase that he (and many others) fear may succeed the recession-depression.
Marc Faber has observed that this is the first time in history that economies around the world are affected simultaneously, since we are now much more inter-connected. So if inflation should take hold, perhaps it will not be fully reflected in the exchange rates - it might be that the dollar remains relatively buoyant against the pound, Euro, renminbi etc.
So maybe the real victims of global inflation, or hyperinflation, will not be this nation or that, but cash savers as a class. They have set aside some of the rewards of work, instead of spending it, and will come back to the cupboard to find it turned half-rotten, as happened in the 70s (if they'd put it in the stockmarket instead, it would only have been a bit mouldy).
How is it that China can award death sentences to those who adulterate milk with melamine, but adulterating the currency - the accumulation of millions of years of human labour - is not even punishable by loss of office? In the year George Washington took Presidential Office, "coining" in England was treason, and perpetrators were accordingly hanged, drawn and quartered (or, in the case of women, burned).
Money is stored life, and devaluing money is stealing life. Next month will be the 20th anniversary of my becoming a financial adviser, and the people I have advised would mostly not bother with investments if only their cash savings could hold their real value. What a scam this all is.
Marc Faber has observed that this is the first time in history that economies around the world are affected simultaneously, since we are now much more inter-connected. So if inflation should take hold, perhaps it will not be fully reflected in the exchange rates - it might be that the dollar remains relatively buoyant against the pound, Euro, renminbi etc.
So maybe the real victims of global inflation, or hyperinflation, will not be this nation or that, but cash savers as a class. They have set aside some of the rewards of work, instead of spending it, and will come back to the cupboard to find it turned half-rotten, as happened in the 70s (if they'd put it in the stockmarket instead, it would only have been a bit mouldy).
How is it that China can award death sentences to those who adulterate milk with melamine, but adulterating the currency - the accumulation of millions of years of human labour - is not even punishable by loss of office? In the year George Washington took Presidential Office, "coining" in England was treason, and perpetrators were accordingly hanged, drawn and quartered (or, in the case of women, burned).
Money is stored life, and devaluing money is stealing life. Next month will be the 20th anniversary of my becoming a financial adviser, and the people I have advised would mostly not bother with investments if only their cash savings could hold their real value. What a scam this all is.
The Greenback is Red-backed
Brad Setser returns to a favourite theme, China's investment in the US. If I can summarise:1. China buys American bonds directly, but also via the UK. Practically all the UK's purchases are on behalf of China.
2. American government bonds are either Treasuries (debts of the government of the USA) or Agencies (debts of US States and local government). Concerned about risk, China has recently been selling Agencies to buy Treasuries, because the latter are backed by the Federal Government.
3. China will continue to invest in the US, because this keeps up demand for the dollar and so keeps down the Chinese currency, the Renminbi. This means that Chinese exports to America will remain very competitive in terms of price.
4. China's continuing support will stop the US dollar from collapsing in the world currency market, as many have feared. Other countries who are also running a trade deficit and need financing, have much more reason to worry.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Dow 2,000: confessions of an optimist
Karl Denninger looks at one of the shapes chartists use to guess market movements, and concludes that a Dow fall to 2,000 points is one possible outcome.Back in November, I did my own work on the "in-real-terms" Dow (i.e. adjusted for CPI), and if history repeats itself, a fall to below the equivalent of 2,000 points would merely be a repetition of what happened twice in the 20th century. But the second low (1982) was not so deep as in 1932, and in December I re-drew the graph with (sort of) reassuring curvy lines, which suggested that maybe the low point next time might only be c. 4,000 points.
This latter attempt of mine sturdily ignored two facts: debt, and its recent monetization (look at Tim Iacono's second graph here) have gone far past all previous levels; and so did the Dow in its "twin peaks" episode of years 2000 and 2007. Maybe the next low will be as devastatingly deep as the last peaks were dizzyingly high.
I will comfort myself with the illusion that the Dow will merely halve, until reality proves me wrong.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Preparing for the Abolition of Freedom in the USA
How many Americans are aware of this?:-
Establishing Martial Law in the United States
(htp: Global Research; referred to me by Paddington)
UPDATE: see this from Jesse re New Hampshire's Resolution HCR 6! Freedom is in the air again!
Establishing Martial Law in the United States
(htp: Global Research; referred to me by Paddington)
UPDATE: see this from Jesse re New Hampshire's Resolution HCR 6! Freedom is in the air again!
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
New Market Terms
[Making the rounds]
CEO --Chief Embezzlement Officer.
CFO-- Corporate Fraud Officer.
BULL MARKET -- A random market movement causing an investor to mistake himself for a financial genius.
BEAR MARKET -- A 6 to 18 month period when the kids get no allowance, the wife gets no jewelry, and the husband gets no sex.
VALUE INVESTING -- The art of buying low and selling lower.
P/E RATIO -- The percentage of investors wetting their pants as the market keeps crashing.
BROKER -- What my broker has made me.
STANDARD & POOR -- Your life in a nutshell.
STOCK ANALYST -- Idiot who just downgraded your stock.
STOCK SPLIT -- When your ex-wife and her lawyer split your assets equally between themselves.
FINANCIAL PLANNER -- A guy whose phone has been disconnected.
MARKET CORRECTION -- The day after you buy stocks.
CASH FLOW-- The movement your money makes as it disappears down the toilet.
YAHOO -- What you yell after selling it to some poor sucker for $240 per share.
WINDOWS -- What you jump out of when you're the sucker who bought Yahoo @ $240 per share.
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR -- Past year investor who's now locked up in a nuthouse. PROFIT -- An archaic word, no longer used.
CEO --Chief Embezzlement Officer.
CFO-- Corporate Fraud Officer.
BULL MARKET -- A random market movement causing an investor to mistake himself for a financial genius.
BEAR MARKET -- A 6 to 18 month period when the kids get no allowance, the wife gets no jewelry, and the husband gets no sex.
VALUE INVESTING -- The art of buying low and selling lower.
P/E RATIO -- The percentage of investors wetting their pants as the market keeps crashing.
BROKER -- What my broker has made me.
STANDARD & POOR -- Your life in a nutshell.
STOCK ANALYST -- Idiot who just downgraded your stock.
STOCK SPLIT -- When your ex-wife and her lawyer split your assets equally between themselves.
FINANCIAL PLANNER -- A guy whose phone has been disconnected.
MARKET CORRECTION -- The day after you buy stocks.
CASH FLOW-- The movement your money makes as it disappears down the toilet.
YAHOO -- What you yell after selling it to some poor sucker for $240 per share.
WINDOWS -- What you jump out of when you're the sucker who bought Yahoo @ $240 per share.
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR -- Past year investor who's now locked up in a nuthouse. PROFIT -- An archaic word, no longer used.
Radical chic
(Pic left: Ken Kesey's bus)QandO has a good go at Bill Ayers, an education prof who once led the violent radical underground Weathermen movement 
(and is married to a former member). For those who want to know about one strand of the Baby Boomers, Ayers (born 1944) may be a touchstone.
(and is married to a former member). For those who want to know about one strand of the Baby Boomers, Ayers (born 1944) may be a touchstone. 
The connection between radicalism and education is a very old one; modern mass communications also come under this category of vectors of revolution. 
Readers might like to consider how many other Ayerses there are, not actually getting their hands dirty anymore but getting well-paid and respected for influencing the agenda in classrooms, TV and the print media. I'm not quite going to take the simplistic guntoting redneck line on them. People like this meant well, but they thought in abstracts, always dangerous with earthbound Man. If there is one thing we must 
learn from the past 40 years, it's that meaning well isn't enough. But they always wanted to do well for themselves out of doing good to others, and have fun doing it - isn't that human.
learn from the past 40 years, it's that meaning well isn't enough. But they always wanted to do well for themselves out of doing good to others, and have fun doing it - isn't that human. Sunday, January 25, 2009
Is "double jeopardy" wrong?
My apologies to readers who may find the following a bit scrappy in style - it is Sunday and I ought to be doing other things in my real life!
Scotland, where the murder rate is double that south of the border, is now considering allowing “double jeopardy”; that is, trying someone more than once for the same offence (this has been possible in England since 2005). Libertarians will worry that the State can persecute individuals using judicial process; even that possibility is something of an extra burden on the citizen.
Penalties for the most serious crime, murder, are not so severe as they once were. There is no death penalty, and life imprisonment rarely turns out to be that: the average time served for mandatory lifers in the UK is 14 years. (Other, non-mandatory life sentences end up as 9 years served, on average.)
Perhaps one could work out the change in penalty as some kind of life-related formula. Let's assume for the sake of argument that life in prison is the same as no life at all. In that case, the death penalty is the loss of 100% of the rest of one's life, irrespective of the time between conviction and execution.
By contrast, how much of the criminal's life does life imprisonment take away? It depends on how old he is when the crime is committed, and how long he might be expected to live afterwards. I can't easily find statistics on the average age of murderers in the UK, but in the US it appears to be around 27. In the UK, life expectancy at birth varies for males according to social class, from 80 to 73 years (further complicated, I should expect, by variations in infant and juvenile mortality rates). Thus the penalty of life imprisonment represents 14/(73 - 27)% = 30% of remaining life.
I've read that before capital punishment was abolished, British juries were more reluctant to convict in cases where the death sentence might be imposed, but I can only guess at how far this might alter the probability of a "guilty" verdict. Shall we say, a difference of 20%? That would mean a penalty factor of (100*0.8)=80% for the death penalty, versus 30% for "life".
The discrepancy may well be less than this, since for many convicts, prison is safer and healthier than the life they face outside. The retired prison doctor "Theodore Dalrymple" has often noted how his patients throve "inside", where largely they were off illegal drugs and were reasonably well-fed. If after serving his time the ex-convict lives a shorter (nastier, more brutish) life, then his prison sentence has consumed a greater proportion of his post-conviction existence.
Wrongful conviction is always a concern. In Parliament in 2006, Mr O'Hara asked "how many miscarriages of justice there have been in capital cases which have resulted in a payment of compensation in the last 30 years", to which the answer was, that there were only four cases. Perhaps it's because forensic science has advanced very considerably since 1964, when the last execution was carried out in England. But the American experience suggests other factors masking miscarriages of justice, including: "Lawyers in many capital cases are lousier than the norm." There's no making up for a mistake, in the case of capital punishment (unless we return to the ancient principle of "weregeld").
What about deterrence? From the foregoing, "life" seems to be perhaps half as onerous as the death sentence. Yet US criminologists appear to agree that the death penalty does not have a significant deterrent effect. Could we argue that in many murder cases, the circumstances of the crime are such the perpetrator simply doesn't consider the potential consequences for himself? Would the same number of such crimes be committed, even if there were no legal penalty at all?
One might argue that deterrence is not the main point, and the penalty, whatever it may be, is simply a punishment that fits the seriousness of the crime. In which case, why is the crime treated so much less seriously than before?
On the other hand, maybe deterrence is an argument, after all. The journalist Peter Hitchens has argued that the murder rate in Britain would be far higher (I think he said, by a factor of about 10), were it not for huge improvements in medical procedures over the last 40 years, that now save the lives of many victims of violent assault. If that is so, then there may well be a correlation between severity of punishment and the crime rate, after all.
Perhaps greater certainty of conviction is the greatest deterrence; but that can't be easily achieved. If re-trial significantly increases the probability of successful and just conviction, it might go some way towards evening-up the odds in terms of deterrence. But I doubt that it will greatly improve conviction rates overall, not least because there will be opportunities for the defence to claim that the outcome has been prejudiced in some way by matters relating to the previous trial and the associated publicity. And I would think there would not be many re-trials approved by the Crown Prosecution Service (or its Scottish equivalent), since they will have to consider the chances of "a result" second time round, and also bear in mind the issue of the presumed-innocent citizen's right not to have his life consumed by legal pestering, for which monetary compensation may never be sufficient.
So I think it's always going to be extremely important to "get it right first time," and I don't think a second pop at the target is going to make enough difference to justify the inconvenience to the accused in cases that don't succeed.
As to sentencing, an incorrect conviction is always wrong, but a death sentence for the innocent is absolutely wrong. Yet for the guilty, the penalty for murder is far less heavy than it used to be, and that, too, seems unjust and quite possibly it has also been one of the reasons for an increase in potentially lethal assaults.
So to me, it would be better to increase time actually served in jail, in cases where the judge determines that consideration of consequences was, or would likely, or (after making allowance for emotion) ought to have been in the criminal's mind at the time of committing the act. (a) I think it would increase the deterrent effect, and (b) opinion may differ, but I think it would be deserved, at least in "serious" cases.
There should also be the swiftest and fairest treatment of appeals, so that where there has been a miscarriage of justice, the innocent should be released as quickly as possible, and compensated handsomely. The State itself needs a deterrent.
Scotland, where the murder rate is double that south of the border, is now considering allowing “double jeopardy”; that is, trying someone more than once for the same offence (this has been possible in England since 2005). Libertarians will worry that the State can persecute individuals using judicial process; even that possibility is something of an extra burden on the citizen.
Penalties for the most serious crime, murder, are not so severe as they once were. There is no death penalty, and life imprisonment rarely turns out to be that: the average time served for mandatory lifers in the UK is 14 years. (Other, non-mandatory life sentences end up as 9 years served, on average.)
Perhaps one could work out the change in penalty as some kind of life-related formula. Let's assume for the sake of argument that life in prison is the same as no life at all. In that case, the death penalty is the loss of 100% of the rest of one's life, irrespective of the time between conviction and execution.
By contrast, how much of the criminal's life does life imprisonment take away? It depends on how old he is when the crime is committed, and how long he might be expected to live afterwards. I can't easily find statistics on the average age of murderers in the UK, but in the US it appears to be around 27. In the UK, life expectancy at birth varies for males according to social class, from 80 to 73 years (further complicated, I should expect, by variations in infant and juvenile mortality rates). Thus the penalty of life imprisonment represents 14/(73 - 27)% = 30% of remaining life.
I've read that before capital punishment was abolished, British juries were more reluctant to convict in cases where the death sentence might be imposed, but I can only guess at how far this might alter the probability of a "guilty" verdict. Shall we say, a difference of 20%? That would mean a penalty factor of (100*0.8)=80% for the death penalty, versus 30% for "life".
The discrepancy may well be less than this, since for many convicts, prison is safer and healthier than the life they face outside. The retired prison doctor "Theodore Dalrymple" has often noted how his patients throve "inside", where largely they were off illegal drugs and were reasonably well-fed. If after serving his time the ex-convict lives a shorter (nastier, more brutish) life, then his prison sentence has consumed a greater proportion of his post-conviction existence.
Wrongful conviction is always a concern. In Parliament in 2006, Mr O'Hara asked "how many miscarriages of justice there have been in capital cases which have resulted in a payment of compensation in the last 30 years", to which the answer was, that there were only four cases. Perhaps it's because forensic science has advanced very considerably since 1964, when the last execution was carried out in England. But the American experience suggests other factors masking miscarriages of justice, including: "Lawyers in many capital cases are lousier than the norm." There's no making up for a mistake, in the case of capital punishment (unless we return to the ancient principle of "weregeld").
What about deterrence? From the foregoing, "life" seems to be perhaps half as onerous as the death sentence. Yet US criminologists appear to agree that the death penalty does not have a significant deterrent effect. Could we argue that in many murder cases, the circumstances of the crime are such the perpetrator simply doesn't consider the potential consequences for himself? Would the same number of such crimes be committed, even if there were no legal penalty at all?
One might argue that deterrence is not the main point, and the penalty, whatever it may be, is simply a punishment that fits the seriousness of the crime. In which case, why is the crime treated so much less seriously than before?
On the other hand, maybe deterrence is an argument, after all. The journalist Peter Hitchens has argued that the murder rate in Britain would be far higher (I think he said, by a factor of about 10), were it not for huge improvements in medical procedures over the last 40 years, that now save the lives of many victims of violent assault. If that is so, then there may well be a correlation between severity of punishment and the crime rate, after all.
Perhaps greater certainty of conviction is the greatest deterrence; but that can't be easily achieved. If re-trial significantly increases the probability of successful and just conviction, it might go some way towards evening-up the odds in terms of deterrence. But I doubt that it will greatly improve conviction rates overall, not least because there will be opportunities for the defence to claim that the outcome has been prejudiced in some way by matters relating to the previous trial and the associated publicity. And I would think there would not be many re-trials approved by the Crown Prosecution Service (or its Scottish equivalent), since they will have to consider the chances of "a result" second time round, and also bear in mind the issue of the presumed-innocent citizen's right not to have his life consumed by legal pestering, for which monetary compensation may never be sufficient.
So I think it's always going to be extremely important to "get it right first time," and I don't think a second pop at the target is going to make enough difference to justify the inconvenience to the accused in cases that don't succeed.
As to sentencing, an incorrect conviction is always wrong, but a death sentence for the innocent is absolutely wrong. Yet for the guilty, the penalty for murder is far less heavy than it used to be, and that, too, seems unjust and quite possibly it has also been one of the reasons for an increase in potentially lethal assaults.
So to me, it would be better to increase time actually served in jail, in cases where the judge determines that consideration of consequences was, or would likely, or (after making allowance for emotion) ought to have been in the criminal's mind at the time of committing the act. (a) I think it would increase the deterrent effect, and (b) opinion may differ, but I think it would be deserved, at least in "serious" cases.
There should also be the swiftest and fairest treatment of appeals, so that where there has been a miscarriage of justice, the innocent should be released as quickly as possible, and compensated handsomely. The State itself needs a deterrent.
You've had your warning
Lord Myners has been criticised for telling the truth too early, i.e. 3 months after the general public could have done anything to save themselves. On October 10, "major depositors" in the USA and Japan were preparing to withdraw their money, and were willing to paying any attached penalty to do so.
For the rest of us, the corralito: "The Mail on Sunday has been told that the Treasury was preparing for the banks to shut their doors to all customers, terminate electronic transfers and even block hole-in-the-wall cash withdrawals."
Even if they had caught wind of it, would we have learned anything of this from the mainstream media? (Scornful laughs) But what were MPs doing with their own money? Perhaps they'd have abandoned us to our fate, like Lord Jim. (I have often thought that the main reason for getting into politics is the opportunity to trade - in all sorts of ways - on inside information and networking).
Do you think the banks have been saved? Mish doesn't think so. Is the pound safe? Jim Rogers doesn't think so (though this business associate of the sterling-busting George Soros may be playing a nasty little game of market manipulation - which is, scarcely credibly, not an incarcerable crime but merely a civil offence.)
Within the past 12 months, the pound has gone from USD $2.12 to $1.43 and Euros 1.40 to 1.06; to put it another way, imports now cost 48% more from the States , and 32% more from Europe. (O&A typical cash rates)
At least you can still get your hands on your money; but for how much longer? It may be that the crisis is over; but it may be that we are in the eye of the storm. Personally, after settling debts I intend (a) to draw extra cash, keep the slip to prove it's been legally obtained, and store it safely away from a bank; (b) to keep at least some of my money in foreign currencies - perhaps the Yen* and Euro*; (c) to look for a variety of non-cash stores of value - and not all of them with Government guarantees, either.
My trust in banks, politicians and journalists is broken. My faith in them is gone, because they did not keep faith with me.
*Though The Big Picture thinks Japan will move to weaken the yen and the Euro-zone is struggling to hold its members together. So, US dollars?
For the rest of us, the corralito: "The Mail on Sunday has been told that the Treasury was preparing for the banks to shut their doors to all customers, terminate electronic transfers and even block hole-in-the-wall cash withdrawals."
Even if they had caught wind of it, would we have learned anything of this from the mainstream media? (Scornful laughs) But what were MPs doing with their own money? Perhaps they'd have abandoned us to our fate, like Lord Jim. (I have often thought that the main reason for getting into politics is the opportunity to trade - in all sorts of ways - on inside information and networking).
Do you think the banks have been saved? Mish doesn't think so. Is the pound safe? Jim Rogers doesn't think so (though this business associate of the sterling-busting George Soros may be playing a nasty little game of market manipulation - which is, scarcely credibly, not an incarcerable crime but merely a civil offence.)
Within the past 12 months, the pound has gone from USD $2.12 to $1.43 and Euros 1.40 to 1.06; to put it another way, imports now cost 48% more from the States , and 32% more from Europe. (O&A typical cash rates)
At least you can still get your hands on your money; but for how much longer? It may be that the crisis is over; but it may be that we are in the eye of the storm. Personally, after settling debts I intend (a) to draw extra cash, keep the slip to prove it's been legally obtained, and store it safely away from a bank; (b) to keep at least some of my money in foreign currencies - perhaps the Yen* and Euro*; (c) to look for a variety of non-cash stores of value - and not all of them with Government guarantees, either.
My trust in banks, politicians and journalists is broken. My faith in them is gone, because they did not keep faith with me.
*Though The Big Picture thinks Japan will move to weaken the yen and the Euro-zone is struggling to hold its members together. So, US dollars?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)