Crime

The cabbie who helped 11 passengers escape during a fatal attack on a Brisbane bus driver last month has been recognised by the taxi industry for bravery. The article also includes a call for mandatory minimums. 

Now, the argument against that call is that it restricts the ability of judges to take into account extenuating circumstances, and there have been at least two studies that I know of where, when given the full facts of a case, members of the public have given “softer” sentences than members of the judiciary. 

However, the "argument against" fails to acknowledge that the public often reacts with genuine fear to such incidents, and wants a way to feel safer. 

Legislative harshness (“hard on crime”) is a common response to such incidents, closely followed by calls for personal responsibility – some of which are misplaced and constitute victim blaming: neither is really appropriate. My understanding is that evidence –from criminologists and others – show that jobs are the best counter to crime; I suspect that improved (not necessarily more – maybe better directed) spending on mental health would help, as would facing the elephant in the room, which is that our modern, high pressure lifestyle both directly creates stress and inhibits the interconnectedness that some people need in order to cope with life. 

The other issue relates to "seeing justice to be done": the failure of the public to understand that justice is being done is a failure to educate people on the nature of punishment that has been agreed for civil society, and why that agreement has been reached. Such should be part of our education system, in my view.

After Castro: the possibility of change?

Fidel Castro, a key player in the Caribbean, a significant part of some US and some broader politics, has died. When reading comments by Castro’s opponents, I noted that former US President Bill Clinton accused Castro of murder for shooting down a plane with US citizens on it which had deliberately and repeatedly flown into Cuban airspace – and yet that is something other nations do as an act of self-defence. I consider both the adulation and the criticism to be excessive: yes, Cuba under the regime of the Castro brothers (the current leader is Raúl) has committed and still is committing human rights abuses – significantly so, more so than democratic nations (see here and here), had committed a violent uprising - against a violent regime, had taken part in events that brought the world to the brink of nuclear world war, and is based on a now well-discredited Marxist-Leninist model of communism (it is not, as Wikipedia claims, socialist: that was a brief initial state after the Cuban Revolution), but:

(a) the Batista regime that was overthrown was violently repressive and undemocratic – and supported by the USA militarily;
(b) there was some good done by the Castro regime – e.g., according to this, free health care and education;
(c) this is one of those situations – such as China in the 1970s – when bringing a nation at least partly “out of the cold” can help bring about change – or at least open the door for change;
(d) the USA’s attempts to overthrow Castro have probably contributed to the mentality that exacerbated and prolonged the human rights abuses; and
(e) the USA’s attitude has always struck me – and others – as being irrational – a bit like someone taking offence at another person for daring to have a different opinion – which, sadly, the USA has done elsewhere as well, despite its notional claims to uphold free speech (and has done internally, for that matter, on many socially progressive matters).

The key here is that this event, combined with the recent thaw in US-Cuban relations, gives Cuba an excuse to start changing for the better (which does NOT necessarily mean “adopt the US way of living”), and the world a way to start gently nudging Cuba to do so.It is up to the USA and the world to take the opportunity which is now presented.

After the US election, ...

... what now?

Well, the US system has - and is very proud of - checks and balances between the three arms of its government (Executive, Judicial, and Legislative). Furthermore, US President Trump is just that - a President, not a King: therefore he has to work within the constraints of the political system he appears to have such problems with. He cannot issue, in a regal manner, a decree to banish or significantly change elections or fundamental aspects such as laws or the constitution (although he can issue some proclamations).

The first problem is, the Legislative branch (or Congress, as our American cousins term it) is also Republican, and is likely to be feeling emboldened - and hawkish. My greatest concern is that the combination of a hawkish, patriotic Congress and a possibly somewhat inept President may lead to disastrous outcomes. I'll get to that in a moment, but it also worth keeping in mind that Presidential appointments to the US Cabinet must be approved by Congress: normally that can be a "bad" inhibition on the Executive, but in this instance, it may be a good thing - it may, for instance, ensure that US President Trump has capable advisors around him - after all, despite what many people think, running a business (whether well or badly) and running a government are very different things.

Despite that, I am concerned that the aforementioned combination of a hawkish, patriotic Congress and a possibly somewhat inept President may lead to disastrous outcomes - such as cutting social welfare to pay for tax cuts, recession or depression (financial, to be clear :) ) - possibly on an global scale,a death toll in Syria and the Yemen in the millions, an emboldened (this post was brought to you by the word "emboldened") Russia annexing eastern Ukraine and possibly the Baltic States (particularly if the USA becomes more isolationist and expects others to do more to defend themselves), and war between the USA and China.

I don't consider the latter prospect likely to happen in the South or East China Sea: I suspect it would more likely happen as a result of clumsiness and hawkishness when trying to protect US intellectual property (IP), which may at least limit the scope of any such war, particularly if US President Trump and Russia's President Putin establish closer relations.

There are other problems:

• the social regressiveness of the Republicans will be to the fore, and minority groups (including women, African-Americans, all ethnic groups, Muslims and other non-mainstream religions) will suffer for it (including more discrimination, murders, rapes and other assaults). Trump may actually try to tone down his message on this, but it will be too little, too late - or will simply alienate his supporters;
• attempts to wind back participation in international treaties will not result in the jobs growth that Trump's supporters are expecting, and this, combined with the limited changes he may be able to realise, may lead to even angrier and more disenchanted people; 
• social tensions will grow, leading to the USA becoming an even nastier place than it is already and, as the US economy collapses, quite possibly massive riots, including in areas that are predominantly white.

On that last point, it has to be said that Democrats voters may lash out in their anger and pain and thus find themselves responsible for violence.

Overall, although the political changes are likely to be bad (or at least disappointing - for instance, if US President Trump does manage to get the minimum wage raised [again, remember that, as I understand it, he cannot issue a decree on this], it won't be significant enough to change people's lives noticeably for the better), it is the deterioration of everyday life and everyday interactions that I fear the greatest effects will be felt - and many of those effects are probably going to be ones that Trump did not intend.

Ultimately, the Trump Presidency may also result in:

• his removal by impeachment (which will be after damage has become nigh irreversible);
• as a result of learning the hard way, some changes for the better (for instance, the conservatives may realise their policies aren't going to work in the future, and there may be a move towards a living wage). 

I'm writing this whilst in a bit of a state of shock, so I don't expect it to be my best work: I hope to be able to look back in a few years and say "I was wrong: it wasn't that bad".