Jasper Smith

Iain Dale discusses Britain’s recent increase in gang-related, US-style gun homicide:

All the evidence points to the lack of a male role model being a key part in a child’s descent into dark places. That’s not criticising single mothers, it is just a statement of fact. Chances are that a child with two parents will emerge into adulthood as a more rounded individual that if it doesn’t have two parents. This is especially true in inner city areas. This cannot be turned around within a few years, but if we do not do something in our education system to explain the benefits of duo-parenthood then if the current trend continues I fear not only for the future of our inner cities but wider areas too. As someone who in the past has aspired to hold political office, I don’t mind admitting that issues like this leave me reeling. I admire those who are thinking about the answers because I suspect very few of us can point to individual measures which we could take immediately to make a difference. Should we be adopting zero tolerance policies in inner cities, or would that push the crimes out into the suburbs? Should we seek to understand less and punish more, or would that entrench criminality for life? Whatever we do, we must learn from other countries. It’s clear that parts of our major cities are experiencing the kind of violent crime which used to afflict many major US cities. We need to learn from from them how they have tackled it and reduced it. New York is not the only example to look at. But we need to do it quickly.

It seems to me the sociological “causes of crime” approach is overly ambitious. Provide people with a good economy and solid education system by all means, but there’s not a whole lot that government can do besides that. All this talk of lack of role models and the bad influence of gangsta culture leaves me underwhelmed. While no doubt these things do add to an atmosphere that encourages violent crime, what exactly can government do about them?

Last time I looked Britain’s murder rate was still only 1/8th or so of America’s, so the British must be doing something right. As a Yank, I’d frankly be tickled pink if the USA had to deal with Britain’s (much smaller) violence “problem.” I mean no disrespect to the victims or families impacted by the recent violence, of course. But by world standards the United Kingdom is still a remarkably peaceful place.

What government can do, of course, is provide swift, efficient justice and effective policing targeting those who commit violent crimes, and those who would seek to profit from violent crime through the black market sale of firearms.

A big part of “effective and swift justice” means putting violent offenders in prison, where they no longer represent a threat to the general public. Imprisoning large numbers of people should make everyone a bit squeamish. And America’s record in this respect is frankly a national scandal (America imprisons a shockingly high percentage of its population). What I don’t think is right is to put huge numbers of non-violent offenders in jail. But I don’t see an alternative to putting away the violent ones. And without a doubt, such a strategy has played an important role in helping the US reduce the incidence of violent crime. It’s not pretty. And it sure isn’t cheap. But building prisons and confining violent criminals inside them has to play a role in any civilization’s quest to protect itself from its most violent elements.

Finally, though there’s not much that can be done about knives (we all have to cut our meat and vegetables, after all), I suspect Britain could redouble its efforts to remain a relatively firearms-free country. Again, this isn’t cheap, and will mean hiring more police specifically charged with the task of going after the illegal guns trade. But making it once again difficult to obtain an illegal gun in Britain will surely go a long way toward reducing the level of murder and mayhem on British streets. As I have argued on numerous occasions (and regrettably to little effect) to pro-gun Americans, being forced to rely on knives and fists turns many a would-be murder into a survivable assault.

UPDATE: I don’t know where I picked up that “Britain’s murder rate is 1/8th of America’s” stat. Well, actually I do, but the blog in questions shall remain nameless. Anyway, I don’t have a link at the moment, but I think recent statistics show America’s murder rate is “merely” triple that of the United Kingdom, not eight times.

The events unfolding on Chicago’s South Side over the last few days have, to my recollection at least, constituted the most dominating series performance by any Red Sox team, ever.

David Ortiz hit a two-run homer, and J.D. Drew and Bobby Kielty ended long homerless droughts to back Julian Tavarez’s first win since late June as the Boston Red Sox finished a four-game sweep of the Chicago White Sox with a 11-1 victory Sunday…The Red Sox outscored Chicago 46-7 in the series, dropping the White Sox to 18 games under .500. Boston has won four in a row, improved baseball’s best record to 80-51 and increased their lead over second-place New York to 7 1/2 games in the AL East.

Emphasis mine. Now bring on the (cough, slumping, cough) pinstripes.

Cafe Hayek brings to Jasper’s attention a John Stossel column on the how America’s healthcare system stacks up in world rankings. Here’s a little excerpt:

The New York Times recently declared “the disturbing truth … that … the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care.” As usual, the Times editors get it wrong. They find evidence in a 2000 World Health Organization (WHO) rating of 191 nations and a Commonwealth Fund study of wealthy nations published last May. In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie “Sicko.” The Commonwealth Fund looked at Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States — and ranked the U.S. last or next to last on all but one criterion. So the verdict is in. The vaunted U.S. medical system is one of the worst. But there’s less to these studies than meets the eye. They measure something other than quality of medical care. So saying that the U.S. finished behind those other countries is misleading. First let’s acknowledge that the U.S. medical system has serious problems. But the problems stem from departures from free-market principles. The system is riddled with tax manipulation, costly insurance mandates and bureaucratic interference. Most important, six out of seven health-care dollars are spent by third parties, which means that most consumers exercise no cost-consciousness. As Milton Friedman always pointed out, no one spends other people’s money as carefully as he spends his own.

This, shockingly, got a nice frothy libertarian contra socialist comment debate going. Characteristic of the debate is the following claim:

The US healthcare system is the best in the world. Period. Better doctors, better/more accessible delivery, better research and development, better perfusion, better administration, better response time, better trained professionals (just not enough), better overall in virtually every single measurable metric.

Okay, let’s get one thing straight: what we have in the United States is certainly not the best healthcare system by “every single measurable metric.” What I think is more accurate to say is that the product delivered by this system is often superior — but the system for delivering that product is creaky, inefficient, and in need of reform. The libertarian pro status quo folks are aping the rigid, “blinders on” stance of their left wing opponents in the pro single payer camp. Both approaches are flawed.

While the actual product delivered by the US healthcare system is very often the best in the world, that system is nonetheless subject to pressures and difficulties that are far less severe and even non-existent in other rich world healthcare systems. Generally speaking, in those other systems, people don’t get denied coverage for preexisting conditions, but in the US this is a serious issue. As is the related problem of job lock. Moreover, in the US, a significant portion of the population lacks medical insurance at any given time; depending on whose statistics you cite that number is anywhere from 7% to 15% of the public. In the rest of the rich world that number approaches zero. In the US, administrative expenses — such as the money devoted to finding out which people ought not be sold an insurance policy — are a tremendous drain of resources. Again, these numbers have consistently been shown to be much lower in other rich countries. And here in the US, medical expenses are a significant driver of personal bankruptcy and financial ruin. Again, this simply isn’t the case elsewhere. And by “other” systems we’re not necessarily talking about evil socialist schemes. France, Australia and Switzerland, to give a few examples, embrace a wide degree of private sector participation in healthcare, and yet manage to avoid the pitfalls of the US model. And their systems deliver results broadly in line with the American experience. For a lot less money.

I agree with many libertarians about the numerous advantages America consumers enjoy because of the heavy participation of non-governmental actors in the delivery of healthcare. I also strongly agree with the notion, that, in any efforts to enact reform, we should refrain from throwing out the private sector baby with the bath water. But nonetheless it’s time to change that increasingly dirty water.