Frat Violence... Again

Seems frat violence reared its ugly head-- again-- at UP, this time along AS Walk on a Tuesday morning. I don't really care if these frat guys kill each other, so long as they don't hurt (or even inconvenience) non-participants when they do so. It would really be better for everyone if they just do their mutual killing away from school grounds (and away from any kind of civilisation, for that matter).

That said, I have to say I'm getting sick and tired of the predictable statements and rallies of outrage coming from UP student leaders, the latest from the ironically-named UP-SAWA. Really, is that the best the UP community can do? Make statements or hold rallies?

The law and the SDT have their hands tied when it comes to punishing these people-- the Mendez and Dungo cases are testaments to that. Add to that the fact that these frat guys usually have rich and powerful brods, who ensure they have only the best lawyers defending them. Waiting for the law and the SDT to punish these people is like waiting for pigs to evolve wings.

So if they cannot be punished legally, why not punish them socially? Ostracise them. Make them pariahs. Turn them into untouchables. If a frat is invioled in a rumble, kick out all their members from organisations, committes, and councils. Bar their members from attending any university or college activity. Extricate them from university life. Tell them that their brod's actions-- and their defence or tolerance of them-- are unacceptable. Tell them that there will be no forgiveness or reconciliation until they hang their erring brods out to dry, or they resign from their frat (which some brave men did after the Mendez case).

UP-SAWA's statement calls on everyone to "to take small but significant steps within their personal circles to continuously and emphatically condemn any and all forms of fraternity-related violence". Are they now ready to sever their academic and personal ties from members of the frats they so "continuously and emphatically condemn"? Are they ready to put their money where their statement is?

All for one and one for all implies the acceptance of collective punishment, so give it to them. Since the law doesn't seem to be any disincentive against frat violence, maybe social ostracisation will send the message home. Kung wala silang hiya, hiyain nalang sila.

Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.

Q. HORATI FLACCI CARMINVM LIBER PRIMVS

XI

Tu ne quaesieris (scire nefas) quem mihi, quem tibi
finem di dederint, Leuconoe, nec Babylonios
temptaris numeros. Vt melius quicquid erit pati!
Seu pluris hiemes seu tribuit Iuppiter ultimam,
quae nunc oppositis debilitat pumicibus mare
Tyrrhenum, sapias, uina liques et spatio breui
spem longam reseces. Dum loquimur, fugerit inuida
aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.

---
English translation here.

My ref magnets...

...make me happy. They remind me of where I've been, what I've experienced, who I've met.

Ref magnets are my souvenir of choice; unfortunately, my collection is way incomplete. But I do have a few magnets from places I haven't been to yet-- those on the lower left-- given to me by family and friends. Any addition is more than welcome. :)

I hope to someday ride the Mongol steppes, eat paella in Valencia, get my feet wet in Lake Victoria. I like to experience the everyday side of the places I visit-- not the Disneyfied touristy stuff-- and local food, of course, is a destination in its own right. In Discovery Channel terms, Sandra Brown is too touristy while Bear Grylls is too tough. The set bounded by Ian Wright and Andrew Zimmern is just right for me, with Anthony Bourdain being my optimal travel style. Oh to have a job like Tony's.

Speaking of travel shows, that show hosted by Tim Tayag over at Living Asia Channel just irritates me. Ok he's a comedian and he has this humour style, but that doesn't mean the show has to be so inane. I recall an episode featuring MRT stations-- Tim was interviewing DOTC Sec. Leandro Mendoza, asking him these nonsensical questions. I swear, the ex-PNP Chief had this look that said, "If only I could shoot him now." They already spent a lot to get the host, producers, crew, etc. to those various places; why not put in the effort for better scripts and segments? Really, the show is like a very bad hangover. With traveller's diarrhoea and lost luggage.

Yeah, I'm envious. Very envious. I should be paid to travel. A lot. To places with weird-sounding names. The more alien the better. Then I go home and stick another magnet to my ref.

Acta de la proclamacion de independencia del pueblo Filipino

Today is Independence Day. Today should be the holiday for our country instead of the sectarian holidays we religiously observe; instead, it's a regular working day, the holiday moved to last Monday for the sake of holiday economics.

Practically every American child has seen a copy of the US Declaration of Independence, usually framed prominently in their school or public library. Rare is the Filipino adult who has seen, much less read, the Philippine Declaration of Independence. I, for one, was 19 when I first saw a facsimile of the Declaration.

So, in honour of Independence Day, here it is.

Downloaded from here. Read the English translation here.

Crime and the withdrawal of human rights

By now you've probably heard about the horrendous crime that happened in Laguna. We hear about violent crime everyday and mostly we are desensitised to them, taking refuge in abstraction, anonymity, and distance. But the events in Laguna really jar the psyche-- the magnitude of violence, the cold calculation of the murderers, the everydayness of the victims.

My condolences to the families of the victims-- their cries for vengeance are understandable and, I say, justified. As for the perpetrators, they should be punished in the most painful and protracted way possible.

That said, let me discuss human rights, which I'm sure the perpetrators will seek refuge in if they are caught and found guilty. Of course the accused, who are presumed innocent, should be accorded due process and all the protection under the law. But what do we do with those who are guilty of the most violent and heinous of crimes? What basis is there to say that the death penalty should be off the table? Generally, what rights of criminals, who despite their actions remain biologically human, may or may not be withdrawn?

Human rights are the set of rights and freedoms that everyone is endowed with by virtue of being born human. No one is born without human rights, and no action is required to acquire these rights. Everyone is entitled to the protection of their human rights, and no one may deny others these rights. However, one can do actions (i.e., criminal activity) that result in the State's (as the representative of society) legitimate and just withdrawal of some of these rights. For example, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) declares that "everyone has the right to freedom of movement". But incarceration-- a withdrawal of this right-- is a universally accepted penalty for criminal activity. So if Article 13 of the UDHR can be withdrawn as a consequence of certain crimes, why not, say, Article 3 (right to life) or Article 5 (protection from torture or cruel punishment)?

One argument is that some human rights are inalienable (e.g., right to life) and others are not (e.g., right to free movement). Alston (2005), who famously visited our country last year, puts it softer as the prioritisation of human rights, that some rights are more important than others and should thus be pursued more rigourously. Accepting that such a dichotomy of human rights exists, how do we detrmine which ones are inalienable (or more important) and thus cannot be withdrawn as a consequence of criminal activity?

Answers based on the Divine, religion, or some "self-evident" truths are flimsy because they cease to persuade once the underlying assertions and dogmas are disputed-- they are only persuasive for the converted. Natural law, social contract, Kantian morality, and evolutionary game theoretic arguments provide sound bases for the universal existence and protection of human rights, but give no objective limits on the punishment for those who violate them.

The strongest argument against the withdrawal of some human rights is the imperfection of the judicial system-- errors can occur and the innocent may be convicted. In this case, certain rights should not be withdrawn if there is a nonzero probability that the convict is actually innocent, especially if the withdrawal of such rights cannot be reversed. Indeed, it is better to err on the side of protecting human rights than withdrawing them. [I use a similar line of argument in my stand on abortion.] However, this is a practical argument that has no bearing on the merits of what punishments should or should not be allowed. After all, this argument falters if there is absolute certainty that the convicted criminal is guilty (say, there is untampered video of him shooting the victims).

The way I see it, the set of human rights that can be withdrawn as a consequence of criminal activity is a matter of social choice. There is no objective reason why some punishments should be allowed and others should be prohibited-- it all depends on the preferences of society. Thus, if society decides that violent criminals like the Laguna robbers should receive capital punishment (i.e., their right to life should be withdrawn), there is no objective reason to say that this should not be done; the only real constraint is society's sensibilities and public opinion.

Violent crimes like the Laguna robberies strain the rationale behind the limits on their punishment. If we subscribe to the social contract theory of human rights, a criminal should be deemed to have surrendered all his human rights if he decides to use violence on his victim. Perpetrators of heinous and violent crimes, if we are absolutely certain of their guilt, should be punished harshly, severely, and mercilessly.

If you disagree with me, do leave a reply and set me right.

An Old Notebook

Much of recorded history is culled from mundane items that were somehow preserved-- an accounting record, a sales contract, a prescription. Same is true for our personal histories. I was rummaging through my car looking for a rag when I stumbled upon an old notebook, stuck in the recesses of the boot. Based on the stuff I wrote there, I used it between 2002 and 2004-- a period that saw huge personal changes and a period that is also very different from my current circumstances. Interesting to look back and see what changed, and what remained the same.

The notebook is a 152mm x216mm, 50-leaf Blue Feather notebook, the standard notebook issued by one of my former employers. Among the contents:

Notes on how to interpret crosstabs. These were the days when the simple two-way table was a technical challenge and error margins were a total mystery. Back then, logit, probit, and tobit were as good as forgetit.

Floor plan of my condo. I drew this a few weeks before moving in, pen and tape measure in hand. I eventually made a better sketch with straight lines and correct proportions (1 inch : 1 metre), allowing me to know which piece of furniture fits where. Been here five years now.

Advice on toning down my language. I sometimes still get this advice, actually. It's good when writing a press release, but not good when writing a report, especially for a politician. No one wants to be told to his face that he has no chance of winning a Senate seat, even if that's exactly what the data say (and what eventually happened).

Model of optimal research effort. Really poor attempt at modelling now that I'm looking at it. I wrote this just before I began graduate school in 2003, probably convincing myself that I was ready for it. I wasn't. But somehow I survived.

Outline of an employee manual. I was supposed to help my admin boss draft a revised manual for our employer. Got repeatedly bumped off of the agenda and we never got down to writing it. I resigned in mid-2004.

Crappy poetry. One of the few times I wrote poetry using a pen, since I preferred to use my typewriter when I wrote anything literary, the noise and vibrations offering some kind of a conversation. I haven't written anything remotely literary lately, Stata and MathType being more frequent companions than my old typewriter. Sigh.

Snack list. Salmon sashimi and fruit salad, which I still like today.

Game theoretic trade model. This is the last thing I wrote in the notebook. I was already more than a year into grad school by then, and I used this model as a basis for three class papers. A long way from those crosstab days.

Now to look for an even older notebook.

On Atty. Punzi's Reflections on the 2007 Bar Exams

Atty. Punzi got one thing right-- his reflections on the 2007 Bar Exams did stir a hornet's nest, especially among those who passed the 2007 Bar Exams. He eventually pulled down his post (without retracting his statements, mind you), but thanks to Google's cache you can read it here. Basically, he is complaining about the Supreme Court's decision to lower the passing grade from 75% to 70%, saying the standards were set too low and that this move tarnished the Bar Exams. "And lowering the passing grade is too much of a compromise and would not fair to those who took previous bar exams and got 74.9% to 70%," he adds.

Atty. Punzi's argument suffers a fatal flaw: he implicitly assumes that the information contained in the 75% passing grade is comparable across years, as if the Bar Exam questions given in one year are comparable in difficulty with those of another. They aren't. The Bar Exams are not like the Medical Boards or the US Bar Exams where there is a bank of objective questions and examinees' answers are checked by computers. The Bar Exams are all essay questions, checked by examiners who have to wade through 5,000+ booklets in varying states of mood and comfort.

Given the highly subjective nature of the Bar Exams-- from the questions all the way to the checking-- the insistence on keeping 75% as an objective gauge of competence just does not make sense. This is like insisting that all runners finish 400 metres in one minute or less regardless of terrain (uphill, downhill, level). One cannot insist on keeping the bar of competence constant when the terrain keeps on changing year after year. One cannot treat Bar Exam results as an objective test of competence when the yardstick is so subjective. Simply put, someone getting 75% in 2006 cannot be judged to be smarter or more competent than someone getting 70% in 2007 because their exams are in no way comparable.

So, from a purely academic and exam design perspective, the Supreme Court had all the right reasons to adjust the passing grade, basically correcting the grade for changes in the terrain (i.e., "unusually difficult" exams, key word being unusual). I think this is why no one is beating the drums against the Court's decision-- most people understand the reasons for it.

Whether 70% is too high or too low is a matter of opinion, just like all other Supreme Court decisions, but is nevertheless binding and valid. Speculating on the reasons they did it is pure folly since these can never be substantiated. It is useless to say that the same rule should be applied retroactively since no two Bar Exams are comparable. In the end, the true test is the job market's response. So far, my new laywer friends have not been having any trouble getting jobs or promotions; in fact, offers have been pouring left and right.

---

Let's keep comments objective and academic. As Atty. Punzi would surely agree, ad hominem arguments serve no purpose in these discussions.