Ricidivism

People have a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior. That is the definition of recidivism. Most people mistakenly think that the definition only applies to a relapse into criminal or deviant social behaviour (such as drug abuse and alcoholism).

Over dinner with friends during the weekend, one very learned friend told a story of how an accused who was being cross examined and asked about his previous convictions, yelled out "You don' remember, Your Worship? You represented me 14 years ago, when I chop up my father!"

But the relapses cover all sorts of behaviour. The most noted case doing the rounds is that of Rihanna and Chris Brown, dancing under the umbrella of domestic abuse. The story goes that he hit her savagely (provoked or not, we will not discuss). She fled from him for a short while, but was soon back in his 'clutches'. Many express concern that he will repeat his acts; they cite the many cases of beaten women who seem to return to get more beatings. But, we have the 'star' drug and alcohol abusers or participants in dodgy stuff who seem damned to do their thing even when money and fame are theirs for the asking: Whitney Houston, James Brown, Michael Vick, Alex Rodriguez, Michael Jackson, O. J. Simpson .... Repeated crimes. Repeated behaviour. "Psychopaths", we call them.

You have it too with lovers or couples and people who have 'emotional bonds' (as distinct to blood ties). They each go their separate ways after things don't work out, but they keep 'running into' each other, by 'accident' or design. Ironically, a reverse, man-beaten-by-woman story appears in today's Jamaica Gleaner (see report and picture), which reports how one woman kept on going back to her man and giving him more licks!

Before people run to tear up their stock of illicit correspondence or wipe their hard disks and phone records, you need to realise that the same behaviour exists with people who are bonded by work and play. Band members are a common group (no pun intended) and the revival is famous. You see it too with staff members returning to an old employer. Both of these instances seem to not last long and end up where they were, that is broken. You see it too with sports teams, but here it is really interesting to see the many players who return to 'where it all started' after being journeymen and play out their careers in the 'cradle'.

Psychologists may look at the repeated behaviour as a kind of 'security blanket' people need. But, it's incredible to think that people are really afraid of abandoning things that seem so clearly bad for them. Hard then for kettles to call pots black.

For criminals, recidivism rates in the UK and US are somewhere around 50-60 percent; for certain crimes the rates are higher. Some US Department of Justice data indicate that thieves have a particular problem:

• Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70%), burglars (74%), larcenists (75%), motor vehicle thieves (79%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70%).
  

For other types of criminals, the rates are much smaller:

• Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.

A study showed that 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.

Sociologists suggest that the increasing computerization and accessibility of criminal records is having a negative impact on recidivism rates as technology advances. Prior to the computer revolution, persons with criminal records were often able to relocate and start their lives over with clean slates in new communities. Former criminals rose to become some of America's greatest leaders in law, industry, and politics by obscuring their records. This possibility seems to be narrowing as criminal records become electronically stored and accessible.

I have not found data on social relationship recidivism. Maybe, I should do an anecdotal study amongst my friends and acquaintance. I'm sure I could get a grant from some agency to fund it.

Ironically, the computer age may limit certain forms of social 'recidivism' as people's computer usage and electronic records get used to confront them with their relapses. Facebook has been used to nab some sexual offenders. People's e-mail and telephone records have been represented as evidence in separation and corruption cases or other instances of indiscretion. Computer programmers and tech nerds may yet become the world's unwitting sleuths as there are very few effective ways of erasing electronic information from a computer short of destroying the whole machine (and that may actually need to be some huge server in a silo in Siberia). People don't need to resort to surveillance program to check their partners because like with criminals, careless behaviour, sets its own traps.

We have seen the social recidivists in high office: Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, perhaps Rod Blagojevich, Lord Mandelson, repeat offenders all, clear patterns of dodgy behaviour. All caught by electronic records (with the help of people's tendency to keep mementos). But, there is a string of lower officials, who get caught in webs of deceit as they keep reverting to type.

I wish I had studied psychology, like my father, and could do also a study on obsessive compulsive behaviour as it appears across the range of human behaviour. Neatnicks in the home and office tend to be orderly across their activities, so when they are not cleaning draws and cupboards and their social behaviour is 'off track', it bears the same repeated behaviour traits: schedulers at home and work and play.

Funny to think that the line between those whom some would condemn as criminals is so thinly separating they themselves from the same class.

Follow pattern kill Cadogan.

I'm beginning to get a better handle on Bajan phrases. The one in the title hit me in the eyes yesterday. I'm told that it is an old Bajan saying, and means you don't have to do what everybody else is doing. Jamaicans have their own version of the same phrase and idea. In Patois: "Look pon dis yah follow fashan bwoy a himitate fi mi style!"; or in standard (H)English: "You're too damn follow fashion. Everything you see me do, you do it too."

A lot of people live by the edict that what's good for the goose sometimes just isn't good for the gander, and for me and others that goes for if not all, then certainly many, aspects of life, including fashion.

It's a useful phrase that has its parallel in the current financial calamity that is hitting many of the world's equity and banking markets. We often talk about "herd mentality" when assessing the behaviour of participants in a market. A lot of investors are just capitulating and running for the door, in the same way that many jumped on the bandwagon in the first place. Bankers also acted in similar ways in getting into "sure fire winners" like sub-prime mortgage paper. (As an aside, I heard a really funny CNN report last night about how Nigeria's banks wanted to get into this area but were not strong enough at the time. Now they stand amongst one of the national banking systems that is relatively strong and immune from this particular wave of bad debt. Of course, Nigeria has plenty of other bad debt issues to deal with and nuff-nuff scams.)

Many who are regarded as far from the madding crowd, such as Warren Buffet, often astonish because they do not follow the rest. They look to get into deals when others feel it's time to pack up the chips (see chart). Current example: equity markets are tanking and the financial sector in particular is having some serious "bad haircut days", and Warren plumps up with a cool US$5 billion to buy shares in Goldman Sachs (in late September), then General Electric gave Buffet's firm Berkshire Hathaway the chance (warrants) to purchase $3 billion in shares. Now, many will have noticed that within days of striking these deals, Buffet was holding nearly instant paper profits worth over US$500 million, but these disappeared almost as rapidly during the past week as stock markets wiped the floor in the worst fall since the mid-1930s over the past week (see Bloomberg report).

People with deep pockets, like Buffet, are not into these things for the short run, so wont be blowing steam or sweating about what happens over a few days. His horizon is over years. If you have shallower pockets and the stomach to maybe see that the prices are not yet at their lowest--and there are plenty of indicators that suggest there will be a brief rally in stock markets before they go lower again--then be like Warren "Cadogan" and don't follow pattern.

Another thing that is clear is that fear is driving a lot of activity in financial markets, and fear leads many to flee rather than fight.

While I was writing this, all the supposed good news that was coming to the ears of market participants was being taken as a reason for more negative sentiment. By the end of the day, the Dow Industrial Industrial Average dumped another 679 points and went to a five- year low below 9,000 (8579); the S&P 500 has retreated on seven straight days, the longest losing streak since 1996, with declines exceeding 1 percent on all but one day. My friendly "fear index" was "flashing a signal that equities are very dangerous right now" (see report). It hit a new record, surpassing 60 during the day, and closing at over 63. No kidding when people say glibly that we are in uncharted territory!

I decided not to trade much today but to use the day as one of observation. I scalped a little though (meaning, made a few deals jumping in and out as prices could not figure out which way to go), as some interesting situations developed, and I played with my dummy account--where it's virtual (not real) money that's at stake. It was another very odd day of volatility in an already extraordinarily volatile week. Only one more day before the weekend.

During the weekend, the Finance Ministers of the major industrial countries, known as the G7, will meet in Washington DCand discuss many of the issues affecting financial markets. I see that my former employer, the IMF has drawn up emergency plans to bail out governments affected by the financial crisis, after warning yesterday that no country would be immune from the ripple effects of the credit crunch (see report). Iceland looks like it's on the verge of bankruptcy, and the government has just had to nationalize the three major banks. But I thought that countries couldn't go bankrupt. How the world is changing.

Maybe I wont be looking forward to the weekend.