"Preet Bharara" syndrome

Preet(inder Singh) Bharara is an Indian - American who has made it big as an Attorney in America. Highly dedicated to and focused in his profession, he has had a successful conviction rate against alleged white-collar criminals.

Preet Bharara has been particularly active in proceeding against Indians in America. We do not know whether this is by design or accident. Nevertheless, the likes of Rajat Gupta are scared of him. Preet Bharara has strengthened his credentials as a person immune to compatriotic indulgence by causing arrest of Devyani Khobragade, India's Deputy Consul General in New York for an infraction of American law.

It is time that we named the quality of proceeding vigorously against legal transgressions by compatriots abroad as a part of "Preet Bharara Syndrome" (PBS).

Crime and punishment

Our criminal system is funny. If a person defaces the name-plate of a residence, he will be questioned by the police for six hours and may also be arrested. If a person commits a more serious offence like rape and thus dehumanises another, he will be free to keep the police on tenterhooks by initiating the judicial process.

If a person has money-power, he is well protected. If he is also politically connected, he is doubly protected and his illegal activities will be ignored or at worst dismissed as drunken bantering.

Sanjay Dutt's plea for extra time

Sanjay Dutt is seeking extra time of six months before continuing his jail sentence. He wants to finish pending work relating to film shooting. Can Supreme Court accept his plea?

There is no human being at any point of time who can claim that nothing is pending with him. An actor has pending films. A cobbler has pending orders to be executed. An academic has books pending to be read.

Six months from now, SD will still have unfinished task. Can wheels of justice stop running?

Why, and how much, do people cheat?

 Rajat Gupta continues to maintain that he has not contributed to insider trading and that he has not cheated. According to the jury, however, he disclosed the confidential information relating to Goldman Sachs Board to Raj Rajaratnam and therefore he did cheat.

Why did Rajat Gupta cheat? Nobel laureate, Gary Becker looks at cheating essentially as an economic issue. Becker considers humans as rational. A would-be cheat takes into account pay-off from cheating, probability of getting caught and severity of punishment.

Dan Ariely differs from Gary Becker and in his recent book titled "The (honest) Truth about Dishonesty", he refers to "Fudge Factor Theory". He argues, "Our behaviour is driven by two opposing motivations. On one hand, we want to view ourselves as honest (called 'ego motivation'). On the other hand, we want to benefit from cheating and get as much money as possible ('Financial motivation'). These two motivations are in conflict. Our amazing cognitive flexibility enables us to secure the benefits of cheating and at the same time view ourselves as honest, wonderful people!"

Ariely also quotes from Jerome K Jerome's novel 'Three men in a Boat' where the author takes a jibe at 'conscientious cheating'. "I knew a young man once, he was a most conscientious fellow and, when he took to fly-fishing, he determined never to exaggerate his hauls by more than 25% 'When I have caught 40 fish' said he, 'then I will tell people that I have caught 50. But I will not lie any more than that, because it is sinful to lie.' "

Cynics may say everyone cheats. Reward-risk equation may be different for different people. Trade-off between ego motivation and financial motivation is conditioned by one's values in life. Perhaps going scotfree on one occasion tempts a person to cheat again.

The Rajat Gupta phenomenon will puzzle and engage behavioural economists for months.

Why this Kolaveri in Velachery?

The Chennai police fired at and killed the five criminals who had earlier robbed two bank branches in the city suburbs. Questions have been raised on the legitimacy of police action. Could they not have captured the criminals alive? Did they take the law into their own hands and commit inexcusable excesses?

The official version is that the police asked the criminals holed up in a groundfloor flat of a large apartment in Velachery to surrender. Instead the criminals switched off the lights and then started firing at the police. In order to protect themselves and the other residents in the thickly populated vicinity, the police had to open fire. In the process, all the five criminals were fatally wounded and two police officers sustained injuries. This version may or may not be true. Future investigations may throw up the truth.

The police has been under tremendous pressure of late on account of a series of unsolved crimes, big and petty, in the city. The police was convinced that they had identified the wanted criminals and therefore there was no question of being accountable for killing the innocent. Further, the criminals were from distant states and public sympathy for them, if at all, would be muted.

Could the police have caught atleast one or two alive? Perhaps yes, but would not the survivors keep taunting the police, truthfully or otherwise, in the inevitable legal proceedings?

In many cases, the culprints are granted bail after which they jump the bail and get back to crimes. Such court-assisted recidivism has now become an open challenge to reputation of the police. Therefore the police action in the instant case was only to be expected. There is necessarily an uneasy trade-off between zealous protection of human rights of proven criminals and safety and security of the innocent public. We have unfortunately veered too much in favour of the former. It is time for a substantive correction.

Update on 26th Feb.:  Today some self-appointed "human rights activists" visited the place where the incident took place. They were driven away by the residents of the place. People's patience with the criminals and the misguided protagonists of their (criminals') rights is running out.