Notes from the Panopticon

Learning lessons

Education is the transmission of civilization.~ William James Durant (1885–1981) and Ariel Durant, born Chaya Kaufman (1898 - 1981)

After the murder of Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan dominated the news for a week or so but that has now faded. We were regaled with speculation about the danger to the world posed by an unstable, nuclear-armed, undemocratic state where fundamentalist Muslims find it easy to integrate into society. It was in Pakistan that the Taliban (which took over the government of Afghanistan and provided shelter to Al Qaeda) were originally able to organize and build a foundation. A recent analysis on television suggests that the Taliban are direct descendants of protestors who instigated the mutiny against British imperial rule and Christian missionary zeal in 19^th century India. But Pakistan is also seen as a major bulwark in the "War on Terror" and has been the recipient of $5bn in US aid since the attack on the twin towers.

Endemic corruption 

Now the excitement has died down, Pakistan has dropped out of media consciousness but its problems remain. And one of its greatest problems is education. Like the rest of public life in Pakistan, the education system is subject to endemic corruption. And this should trouble the rest of the world because education in Pakistan is being exploited by fundamentalists in their drive to recruit new followers.

When it was provided with American aid on a massive scale, Pakistan promised to devote some of the money to improving its education system. The World Bank has also allocated a separate $300mn specifically to support schools and colleges – but fearing that the money will disappear into a sink of corruption, it is reluctant to disburse the funds until proper control systems are put in place. These fears are justified. American officials supervising military aid suspect that invoices for supplies are inflated by as much as 30%, enabling millions of dollars to disappear. And in the education system, officials estimate that corruption taps 15% of intended expenditure.

Dangerous structures

Little has been done to improve education in Pakistan. In the Punjab, for example, there are 63,000 state schools, of which:

• 5,000 (8%) have been condemned as dangerous structures.
• 26,000 (41%) have no electricity.
• 16,000 (25%) have no toilets.

Many teachers see their jobs as sinecures and don't turn up to work, while local inspectors distrust the information provided by the ministry of education. Few schools have enough classrooms and some resort to teaching in the open air under trees (possibly safer than sitting in a classroom with cracks in the walls and an unstable roof). Often they have to cope with only one quarter of the desks required. Understandably, parents are reluctant to send their children to these underfunded and under-supervised institutions.

Vacuum filled

Two groups of educators have moved in to fill this vacuum: private schools and religious madrassas. It is the madrassas that have attracted most attention and generated hysteria in the press both inside and outside Pakistan. Some of them are run by fundamentalists, preach Jihad, and groom their students to be revolutionary fighters and suicide bombers

The media in Pakistan and across the world, supported by wild estimates made by Pakistani police, have exaggerated the scale of this problem. A more restrained study by the World Bank and Harvard University has estimated that the true numbers of children being educated in madrassas represents a little less that 1% of children in the 5-19 age group. These figures must be put into context:

• 33% of children are enrolled in state schools.
• a further 12% are enrolled in private schools.
• 87% of children enroll in primary education, but numbers fall sharply at secondary level.
• literacy rates are 63% for men and 36% for women, showing that the standard of education is poor (in comparison, the figures for India are 76% and 54%).

Wealthily endowed madrassas

The development of the private sector is striking. Private schools now educate one third as many children as those educated in the state sector. The population values education and is willing to make sacrifices to give their children the schooling which the state fails to provide. Much has been said about madrassas (wealthily endowed by Saudi money) providing the only chance for the poorest Pakistani families. But private schools are cheap and all but the very poorest can afford them.

So is there nothing to worry about? Indeed no. There are dangers and they are serious ones. The WB/Harvard study showed that, while in most areas of Pakistan madrassas account for less than 1% of school enrolments, in the so-called tribal areas (where Pasto is the main language and there are strong links to Afghanistan) the percentage rises to over 7%. These are the areas the state finds most difficult to control and, if madrassas do have a malign influence, it is here that it would be easiest to foment and develop an anti-democratic movement.

Children brought up to hate Muslims

The survey also estimated that there are about 175,000 students enrolled in madrassas. If we make a guess that 5% of madrassas are run by fundamentalists, this still means that almost 9000 children are being brought up to hate Muslims who do not meet their own "high" standards.

The theory propagated by the extremists is this. The only acceptable law is Sharia law and this should be interpreted strictly (hence the enforcement of headscarves and the like for women … among much worse horrors). It is the duty of good Muslims to create a state which accepts and enforces Sharia. Government leaders who do not concur are the enemy. Those who conspire with the West are the enemy. Muslims who support these governments are the enemy.

In this way, the fundamentalist madrassas create a justification for killing other Muslims. The suicide bombers are given a target and a cause. It has, however, very little to do with the West; the majority of victims are much closer to home. But a flow of almost 9000 young men and women (possibly more – other estimates are higher and my guess of 5% of may be optimistic) is more than enough to recruit suicide bombers and build momentum for the movement.

Dodging and weaving

So let us return to Benazir Bhutto. She and her husband spent the years since she was ousted from power dodging and weaving to avoid convictions for corruption and embezzlement. Indeed, she was convicted of money laundering by a Swiss magistrate, while a British judge found grounds for a prosecution against her and/or her husband for purchasing an estate in the English home counties with the fruits of embezzlement.

Despite this track record, the West was keen to have Bhutto as a friend in Pakistan because of the fear that a nation with its own nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of someone worse. The US has provided huge amounts of cash, some of which has been used to buy delivery systems for these weapons of mass destruction, and has only recently begun to worry about whose finger might be on the button. Bhutto provided some hope of a friend to the West and she certainly looked the part, acting like a civilized politician, speaking excellent English, and sending her son to Oxford.

She had plenty of support in Pakistan (the first attempt on her life killed more than 130 people because her rally attracted so many supporters). But it is almost certain that she, like other political leaders in Pakistan, was a thief. Some of the money she stole, and the money that leaked away into the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians, was supposed to have been spent on education, on the rebuilding of dangerous schools, and on ensuring that teachers turned up to do their jobs.

The public in Pakistan wants education and many people are willing to pay for it. Some of them, however, send children to be taught hatred by cynical clerics who tell them that martyring themselves while killing the opponents of whichever fundamentalist branch of Islam they represent will earn them a place in paradise.

More moral hazards: a reply to threeportdrift’s comment

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. ~ John Stuart Mill (1806 –1873)

From the start I hoped that this blog would provide a forum for discussion. It is hard thinking in a vacuum and I am grateful to threeportdrift for making a number of very interesting points. (see original article and threeportdrift's comment)

What I mean by moral hazard

It seems I failed to make clear exactly what I
meant by moral hazard so I'll have another go. The moral hazard faced when failing banks are bailed out is that the fear of failure is dented and therefore other banks will behave irresponsibly in the future because they believe that they too will be rescued if they gamble and lose.

The parallel in law-making is that, if laws are made and widely ignored, or if they are poorly or unevenly enforced, then respect for the law is eroded. A society without respect for the law is in danger of losing moral cohesion. This is the hazard it faces. It is parallel to the financial moral hazard: if people see others getting away with irresponsible behaviour, they will tend to abandon their own moral compass and behave less responsibly too. It also happens when there are too many laws which citizens find silly, unfair or unacceptable, or which they do not understand. In all these cases, there is a danger that society will lose faith in the institutions which uphold justice.

That is the simple part of the argument. The harder part is deciding when it is reasonable and realistic for society to enact laws to persuade people to pull in the same moral direction, and when it is justified for parts of the population to stand up against laws that are unfair or unjust. And it is here that threeportdrift seeks to take issue with the examples I used to make my point.

Loss of moral faith

My fear is this. The huge number of laws introduced by the Labour government, and its inconsistency in enforcing its policies, are indeed giving rise to a loss of moral faith.

Threeportdrift's last point ("ordinary oiks get off time and time again with warnings even whilst their behaviour gets more and more destructive"), far from undermining my point, actually supports it. I see it like this. The "oiks" see the Kate Mosses, the Elton Johns and the Jackie Smiths of this world getting away with breaking the law and think to themselves "why should I bother?" The reason they should bother is that they don't have the financial and social resources to slip through the legal net. So they get caught – in numbers that the legal system finds difficult to cope with. And so the justice system has a problem which it handles by reducing prosecutions for minor offences. This, in turn, reinforces the idea that the law is there to be ignored. And small crimes turn to bigger ones. (more here)

But let us not forget that being let off with a warning leaves an indelible stain. It makes it hard to reintegrate into society and, in particular, to make a legal living. So an underclass is generated that does not fully integrate into society. Organised crime is the main beneficiary, with society providing them with a work force made up of young men and women with no hope and with nothing to lose. (more here)

We must also remember that the Jackie Smiths and Kate Mosses and Elton Johns provide(d) these gangs with a market for their products, just as the celebrities of the day provided the Mafia with a market for illegal booze when the US government introduced prohibition.

Picking and choosing

Drug laws, I believe, generate the largest and most easily identifiable moral hazard. But respect for the law and the government is also eroded in other ways. If people feel able to pick and choose which laws to obey (speed limits outside schools good; roadworks on the M4 in the early morning bad) is exactly the kind of moral hazard that I am concerned about. It would be much better for the government to bring in fewer laws, to think harder about their implications, and to do its best to ensure that all parts of society are have an incentive to pull together and respect the law.

Epidemic hazard

A final point. Society's contempt for the government and its institutions also shows itself outside the area of the law. When a rogue scientist (completely spuriously) claimed that the MMR vaccine (more here) was the cause of autism and some types of bowel disease in young children, the government was unable to convince the public – in particular the parents of young children – that there was no danger. The government was paying the price for failing to maintain the trust of society, the effect of perceived lies and double-talk, as well as frustration at government efforts to micro-manage people's lives. So when an opportunity arose to make a protest, the population voted with its feet. The result was a catastrophic collapse in the number of children protected against measles, mumps and rubella, and a population vulnerable to an epidemic. Lies and obfuscation also carry a moral hazard.

I believe the government should treat us as citizens, not as subjects. The task is not easy because it must reconcile different needs and expectations in its policies and law-making. But its watchword should be "less is more" (see JS Mill quotation at the top of the page). Fewer laws mean fewer risks of moral hazard. And above all, everyone – and that includes the government and its ministers – should be treated equally.

Thank you, threeportdrift , for giving me the opportunity to clarify my thinking. I hope that I have made my point better now. I am always keen to hear from readers.

Picture credits:

www.badscience.net/?p=457

http://sobnation.wordpress.com/

Moral Hazards

The first sign of corruption in a society is that the end justifies the means. ~ Georges Bernanos (1888-1949)

Between a rock and a hard place

The term "moral hazard" has been around for a long time. It popped into consciousness most recently when Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, invoked it to explain why it is not always a good idea for the government to bail out a bank – specifically Northern Rock.

It's like this. People are grown-ups who navigate through the world by taking risks, some of which work out and some of which don't. This is especially true of the banking business. If the risks taken don't work out and the bank finds itself up s*** creek without a paddle, there will be a nasty fall out. Ordinary people with money in the bank will get hurt. If the government bails out the bank using tax payers' money, then the next bank will be less careful, believing that – if the worst comes to the worst – the government will pile in to save it. Risky business practice will become the norm and we shall all go to hell in a hand-basket.

But a big problem remains. We, the poor bank customers, do not have the resources or the understanding to know whether a bank is acting prudently or not. And we would not be given the information on which to base a decision even if we asked for it. So we have to rely on government regulatory systems to check things out for us. Hence the dilemma when government watchfulness fails.

Law of unintended consequences plus

There are many other moral hazards we need to worry about, most of them relating to government activity. It's a bit like the law of unintended consequences but, in the case of moral hazard, the dangers created are evident at the start. The hazard is created by the wilful folly of decision makers.

Loans for honours

Let's start with a topical one. Donations to political parties. For the benefit of readers outside the UK, the Labour government has twice been caught flouting the rules on accepting political donations. The first time, they broke the spirit but not the letter by accepting loans instead of gifts and offered to repay the lenders with honours. The second time, the jury is still out. The claims and counter claims about who did what and who knew what when are the typical spats that go on between politicians when they have broken the rules and been caught out. "I didn't know and didn't mean it" is a feeble response which would not be accepted as a defence in court. Yet that is exactly what we are getting from the politicians who frame our laws.

Why should politicians get away with breaking the law while expecting the rest of us to obey it? Perhaps it's because they have power and the rest of us don't. And it's probably why David Blunkett (former Home Secretary) seemed so indignant when he was caught using public money to pay for his girlfriend's train tickets. The moral hazard here is that respect for law is eroded when the powerful show a blatant disregard for it (if, that is, they think they can get away with it).

Drug culture

And then there is legislation against drugs. Celebrities do not even try to hide the fact that they break the law – and those same celebrities are feted by the political clique and even by royalty. The moral hazard here is obvious. On the one hand, ordinary oiks caught with drugs receive, at the very least, a criminal record and a good chance of going to prison. Their life chances are often ruined, while the rich and famous continue to smoke and snort with impunity.

Politicians bemoan the decline in respect for law and order; they berate an ill-disciplined youth for its failure to behave responsibly. But how can you persuade disadvantaged young people to respect the law when, at the same time, the politicians who frame the laws (and their celebrity friends) fail to do so? You see what I mean by moral hazard.

Slush funds

Which brings me to laws that are unenforceable. The war on drugs is costly both in financial resources and in wasted lives. The demand for drugs cannot be stemmed. Organized crime finds it has a lucrative business and a good percentage of the population is happy to ignore the law. What is it about governments around the world that they cannot break the habit of banging their heads against this particular brick wall? They know they are not going to win (just as the US failed to stop alcohol consumption in the 1920s). Instead they have created a moral hazard. Lakes of illegal money are used to corrupt politicians and officials and, in some states of the world, to subvert entire governments.

Criminal records for all

Moral hazard also comes from the efficient enforcement of regulations that are routinely ignored. Such a high proportion of drivers have been convicted of speeding that many of them accept the status of convicted criminals as normal, not something of which they should feel ashamed. This situation should not be accepted with equanimity and at least the government minister who was caught driving while using a mobile phone was convicted and fined. But he still attempted to mitigate his crime by claiming that he was dealing with important affairs of state at the time.

The hazard here also undermines respect for the law. Unless criminals represent only a small minority of the population, then criminality becomes normal, fear of punishment loses its sting, and punishments become harsher to enforce the law. We end up in a situation where you might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. If I am fined for putting my bins out on the wrong day, why should I leave it at that? I might as well do some fly tipping as well. Not a big deal in comparison with the other examples, but corrosive all the same.

Less is more

According to the Liberal Democrats, "Since 1997 this government has passed 365 acts of Parliament and more than 32,000 statutory instruments." This has introduced well over 3000 new criminal offences. When the government was caught out in the loans-for-honours fiasco, it responded by introducing yet more legislation and has now tangled itself up in that.

The most horrific part of the unfolding saga is not the facts of the case, but a statement by Wendy Alexander (leader of the Scottish Labour Party) in which she rejects any suggestion of "intentional wrongdoing". Her statement clearly shows that an important politician no longer feels bound to obey the law. "I did not mean to do it" may be a mitigating factor – but it is definitely not a defence.

So the government itself has fallen victim to the barrage of moral hazards which it created.

Slippery slope

Mervyn King thought long and hard before the rescue of Northern Rock was put in place. One assumes that an assessment was made and he accepted that the failure of the bank would pose a greater danger than the moral hazard created by the rescue package. Would that the government made more decisions in this way. If only it would think harder before creating so many new laws.

And there is little evidence that society is improving as a result of all this legislation. Prisons are overcrowded and convicted criminals are released early to make room for new ones. Middle-class criminals discuss the hazards of life with 9 points on their driving licences (next strike and the licence is gone), petty thugs wear ASBOs* as a badge of honour, and government ministers wriggle when they are caught on hooks of their own making. The investigation of a major corruption case is abandoned when a dodgy ally threatens to take its business elsewhere. A self-confessed drug user sings at the funeral of the Princess Diana in front of a congregation that included past, present and future prime ministers, the assembled royal family and a world-wide television audience.

The legal structure has started to creak. Respect for the law is flying out of the window at all levels of society – including the political classes. There is ever-present danger of the endemic corruption which dominates so much of the world. In the map below, the darker the red, the more corrupt the nation. Frightening isn't it?

• An ASBO is an Anti-social Behavior Order. It can be requested by the police, or a local authority and is imposed by a judge without a trial. The person on whom it is imposed is restricted from acting in certain ways or being in certain places. Violation of the ASBO can result in a prison sentence. So it acts as a method of punishing an individual without needing to prove that they have committed any crime other than violating the ASBO.

Bully boys

"I have learned silence from the talkative, tolerance from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strangely, I am ungrateful to these teachers" ~ Kahlil Gibran (1883 – 1931)

The news that a 19-year-old girl from the largely Shia town of Qatif has been sentenced, by a Saudi court, to 200 lashes and six months in prison, after she and a male friend were raped by a gang of seven men, adds poignancy and relevance to this article. Both victims were originally sentenced to 90 lashes for “illegal mingling”, for riding in a car together without a chaperone. The girl’s lawyer was banned from the courtroom and his licence withdrawn when he appealed against the original sentence.

The rapists were originally sentenced to terms ranging from 10 months to 5 years, sentences which were also increased on appeal. The two cases, the illegal mingling and the rapes, were tried at the same time and in the same court.

Let me first establish my credentials. I am straight. I am attracted by women, not by men. I have homosexual friends of both sexes. I have been propositioned by men and turned them down because what was on offer was not to my taste.

So what is it that homosexuals do which is not to my taste? They are people who are just like the rest of us but who are attracted to the bodies of others of the same sex. They get pleasure from indulging in activities that are parallel to the ones I like to indulge in with my wife. My preference is to do these things with a woman, not with a man.

For homosexuals, the practices they enjoy with willing partners were illegal in this country until very recently. They remain illegal in many countries. And everywhere homosexuals are discriminated against merely because of what they like to do with each other.

Let's not beat about the bush. Let's be clear about what discrimination is. It is bullying pure and simple. It is picking on individuals who don't fit into the norm. It is picking on the kid in the playground because he wears glasses. But what is special about some forms of bullying is that they are:

• ignored by those whose job it is to maintain law and order (e.g. disproportionate numbers of black people in prisons and mental institutions)
• tolerated (e.g. churches exempted from female equality legislation)
• officially sanctioned (e.g. laws against homosexual acts)

All pretty obvious stuff, so why go through it again? It is because the laws against homosexuality – which were brutally enforced until so recently – were as wrong then as they are now. (It is likely that the brilliant Alan Turing, who did much to win World War II by deciphering enemy codes, was hounded to death by an unrelenting police force.)

Laws which stop people doing what they want to do – unless of course they hurt others – are wrong. So how was legislation against homosexuals justified? And how are the prejudices which still lead to discrimination (e.g. restricted employment in the church and armed forces) justified? The justifications fall into 4 groups:

• Religious
• Unnatural
• Unsocial
• Disgust

Religious objections

Religious objections continue to be the most effective. They come from powerful institutions which influence the framing and interpretation of laws. They also enjoy a peculiar exemption from normal debate because people's religious beliefs are treated as sacrosanct (no pun intended). In Britain for example, churches continue to discriminate against homosexuals – as they do against women – with impunity. Their justification is in scripture and in the beliefs and feelings of their adherents.

What is it about sexual preference that makes it so difficult for churches to accept? They are happy to ignore or sidestep a vast array of other scriptural strictures ("thou shalt not kill" leaps to mind), while homosexual behaviour leads to deep discomfort, and even to schism. At the same time, it is an open secret that homosexuality has dug its roots deep into the workforce and hierarchy of many churches, resulting in little harm to their operations.

The harm that does result is caused by the moral hazard inherent in covering up activities that are officially outlawed. This leads to corruption and institutional paralysis in the face of evidence of abuse. It is the same moral hazard caused by the celibacy of Catholic priests and nuns which, notoriously, has led to child abuse scandals across the world and the payment of millions in hush money. And some church institutions in which systematic abuse took place survived almost to the present day (e.g. the Magdalene laundries in Ireland).

Churches would be cleaner and healthier places if they accepted that most homosexuals, like most straight people, are decent, honorable and caring members of the community. Their sexual preferences hurt no one and, as individuals, they have much to offer to the community. Acceptance would make it easier to police the bad apples (straight as well as gay).

Nature in all its glory

The claim that homosexual acts are unnatural can be attacked from three directions:

• First, what is wrong with unnatural? The list of unnatural things that are part of everyday life is endless. Births by Caesarian section, wearing clothes, flying in airplanes, circumcision, enforced monogamy, baptism, inoculation, pain relief… Why single out homosexuality as unacceptable because it is unnatural?
• Second, who says it is unnatural? The fact that so many people in so many places and times have been willing to indulge in acts which carry the severest penalties suggests that their impulses are common, powerful and natural. Any field with farm animals reveals that homosexual activity goes on among all kinds of animals, not just among humans.
• Third, what's so good about natural? Dying of malaria is natural.

The "unnatural" lobby sometimes argues that homosexual relationships are, by definition, barren. But that is not an excuse for legislating against them or discriminating against them. Priests and nuns are required to be celibate by their calling. Infertile couples of all kinds have sex and, outside of Ceausescu's Romania, no-one is forced to have children. The argument is spurious.

Moral turpitude

Does homosexuality disrupt society? I'll give two examples to explore this hypothesis:

• Imagine a man propositioned by a woman but not tempted because he is homosexual. His tastes are frowned upon by society, so he enters into a relationship with this woman for whom he has no desire. This unhappy relationship could easily become socially disruptive; finding a man to make him happy would be more likely to result in harmony.
• Now imagine a woman reaching marriageable age at the end of World War I when there was a shortage of men. For companionship, she chooses to live with another woman and discovers that she is not averse to sexual experimentation with her companion. When this relationship becomes known, they are shunned by society. That shunning is socially disruptive. Not their loving act.

People's sexual preferences are part of who they are. I would not be happy in a homosexual relationship and I do not expect a homosexual to be happy in a straight one.

Finally, the argument that homosexuals might corrupt our children. This argument is spurious too. A homosexual would only corrupt a child sexually if he or she was a paedophile (and there are almost certainly more heterosexual than homosexual paedophiles).

And homosexuals who want to adopt, or otherwise organize themselves to bring up children, are just as likely to be as good parents – or bad parents – as straight couples.

" It's disgusting and should be banned."

I was careful to say at the outset that, when propositioned by men, I declined because it was not to my taste. I did not find it distasteful or disgusting. I just did not want to do it. There are a whole range of things I like to eat that my wife dislikes because of the taste or texture and she is not slow in saying so. I sometimes feel hurt when she says that the custard or sticky drinks that I enjoy are disgusting because it spoils my appetite. Disgusting is a nasty word for something you dislike. It is used deliberately in the context of homosexuality in order to raise the emotional temperature. To justify the bullying.

Truly disgusting acts are those where someone is made to suffer, like locking up homosexuals or executing them (as happens in Iran).

Legalised bullying

None of the justifications for legislating or discriminating against homosexuals carry any weight. So why was legalized bullying against a minority tolerated for so long? It is because there is an impulse in many people that makes them feel justified in telling others how to live their lives. And even to call for their prejudices to be turned into laws.

The controlling impulse of those who claim moral superiority and those who think they know best is a powerful force. No longer able to discriminate against homosexuals, the "do it my way" brigade are picking on other groups: smokers; fat people; drug takers; immigrants; asylum seekers; Polish plumbers; women who want abortions; just women (in many countries and communities, especially Islamic ones); terminally ill people who want to end their lives (and friends and relatives who, distressed by their suffering, want to help them); non-violent drinkers; adolescents; children; parents…

There is an unrelenting desire to bully non-conformists and minorities. Homosexuals have proved very recently that minority groups no longer have to accept all that is thrown at them. So let us all learn a lesson from them and not give in to those who want to push us around.

It would be even better if we curbed the urge to tell other people how to live their lives. Providing information is good. Giving a helping hand when asked is good. Offering unsolicited advice is bearable. Forcing people who don't hurt others to conform is unacceptable. This I find disgusting.

The tragic death of Rhys Jones ~ the devil makes work for idle hands

"I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun." ~ George W. Bush, St. Louis Missouri, October 18, 2000

The shooting to death of Rhys Jones, an eleven-year-old boy, on the streets of Liverpool has generated the usual round of hand-wringing, breast-beating, finger-pointing, and promises of action from the leaders of the main political parties. "Solving this will not be simple", they say, and then go on to talk about how they will work harder using policies that have already been proved to fail.

The solution is not simple. But there are two factors that are easy to identify which contribute to the problem:

• Government anti-drugs policy
• Youth unemployment

In the 1920s, the United States experimented with the prohibition of the sale and consumption of alcohol. It was focusing on a social evil – and alcohol remains a problem in Britain today. According to the Home Office's British Crime Survey (figures for 2006/7), 46% of offenders who committed violent crimes were perceived to be under the influence of alcohol. This overall figure breaks down as follows:

• Domestic, 39%
• By strangers, 58%
• By acquaintances, 47%

(See table below.)

However, the American way of tackling the evil of drink proved worse than the disease. Sharp operators recognized an opportunity to make money and the era of gangsters – with its bloody violence, corruption of government officials and gun crime – emerged. And despite the repeal of prohibition, the organised crime syndicates that grew out of the gangs remain and have grown stronger.

It is extraordinary that the world's governments have, collectively, failed to learn this lesson. Instead, they have picked a fight against illegal drugs that they can never win. And in so doing, they have provided organised crime with a new area to exploit.

In contrast with alcohol, only 17% of violent offenders were under the influence of drugs in 2006/7:

• Domestic, 15%;
• By strangers, just 12%
• By acquaintances, 21%.

Only in the case of muggings did drugs have a higher percentage than alcohol (by just two percentage points).

However, making drugs illegal has had exactly the same effect (this time on a world-wide scale) as alcohol prohibition in the US in the 1920s – corruption, bloody violence, gangs, knives and guns.

The Home Office identifies three levels of gangs:

• Peer groups
• Street gangs
• Criminal networks

A study (by Professor Pitts of Bedfordshire University) of gang membership in South London found that the development of the drugs market has led to the need for an expanding workforce. The street gang provides the shop floor of the international drugs business; gang members protect the territory and provide a distribution network.

Low level peer group gangs are sucked into this culture. Pitts found that 40% of younger gang members were reluctant. They had no criminal record but felt unable to leave the gangs for fear of reprisals on themselves or their families. The knife and gun attacks that have made the headlines recently are, in part, a reflection of this.

It is not hard to see that these are preconditions for an escalation in violence. The lower level gangs are used by hard-line criminal networks to distribute their drug merchandise. Real money is at stake and it needs to be protected. What could be easier than for the big boys to provide their new lieutenants with weapons. Guns bolster their recruits' morale and sense of importance. And a genie is let out of the box.

I said there were two easily-identified factors leading to the upsurge in violence on the street. Let's now examine the second one. It would be harder – not impossible, but harder – for criminals to draw street gangs and their members into their networks, and harder for street gangs to conscript new members, if the pool of potential recruits was smaller. But that pool is large and growing. See chart below.

Between the year 2000 and 2007, the unemployment rate among 16 and 17 year-old boys has grown from 21% to 31%, an increase of 45%. The unemployment rate for 18-24 men is lower at 14%, but this is still two and a half times the rate for all age groups, and has grown by 15% during the period. By contrast, unemployment among all age groups is 5.7%, down by 5% over the period. So we have a large and growing group of boys and young men with nothing to do. And as we all know, "the devil makes work for idle hands".

The irony is that, over this same period, the percentage of boys achieving 5 or more GCSE passes at grades A*-C has risen from 46% to 57%, a rise of 24%. This improvement has come at some cost. Government expenditure on education between 2000/1 and 2005/6 rose from 4.9% of GDP to 5.6% (from £47bn to £68.5 bn, a rise of 46%).

It is a pity that all this money spent by government, and the efforts on the part of teachers and pupils, did not help more boys to find jobs. Instead, it seems that nobody wants them. With nothing better to do and with little to hope for, it is not surprising that their youthful energy is channelled into anti-social behaviour. Such alienation from society easily escalates into a gang culture. Gangs provide respect and a sense of belonging for these young men which is denied to them by society.

Now add to this problem the opportunities offered by illegal drugs. Criminal networks find it easy to turn the boys and young men that nobody wants into hoodlums (to use an old-fashioned, but graphic and appropriate word from the days of prohibition) and to arm them with weapons.

So finding the solution to the rise in gun and knife crime, as well as more general anti-social behaviour, requires effort in two areas:

• Finding a less damaging way to control narcotic drug supply and consumption, and
• Finding a better way to provide boys leaving school with (1) qualifications that employers find useful and (2) attitudes that prepare them better for the world of work.

Picture credits:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/21/ngcse121.xml

http://brain.brent.gov.uk/brain/braincf.nsf/images/nad2_logo/$file/nad2_logo_content.jpg