6 ms·

Edit: I'm asking a serious question here - the article itself mentions that the poorest people aren't able to get access to birth certificates or get their home

Edit: I'm asking a serious question here - the article itself mentions that the poorest people aren't able to get access to birth certificates or get their home connected to municipal water unless they pay bribes they can't afford. This seems pretty brazenly criminal to me. And the death penalty is legal. So... Maybe a naive question - how hard would be to just have the government announce they're going to hang anyone who asks for a bribe, then make a big show about hanging 100 corrupt bureaucrats? Wouldn't that drastically cut corruption down?

rjb 17y ago
I think punitive measures generally do not work. What is great about this is that it breaks someones sub-conscience, snaps them out of their behavior (hopefully), at the very moment of corruption.
sorbus 17y ago
It would reduce corruption - temporarily, at least, even though the killings would probably end up being very political (a bad thing! Consider how many would take it as a chance to get rid of their enemies). It would also scare bunches of people, and corruption would merely go underground as long as the hangings were enforced, before reappearing when enforcement slips. Not to mention the difficulties with getting the government - assumed to be filled with corruption - to do it. It is basically infinitely easier to educate the populace, make them refuse to give bribes when asked, and give them a way of responding to bribes which both refuses to do so, lets them feel part of an anti-bribe community, and reminds the officials that bribes are illegal. Also, I doubt that anyone would argue that murdering anyone who asks for a bribe is better than eliminating the environment which makes people feel like they can ask for bribes.
tokenadult 17y ago
how hard would be to just have the government announce they're going to hang anyone who asks for a bribe, then make a big show about hanging 100 corrupt bureaucrats? Wouldn't that drastically cut corruption down? Thanks for asking a specific factual question. The policy you mention has not worked in China, where it is widely seen as a way to kill off lower-level officials who are insufficiently cooperative with the highest-level officials. China regularly has publicly announced executions for corruption, but it still has pervasive corruption.
- blueag 17y ago
  From what I heard the corruption in China has decreased due to mulit-prong approach to fight it there. Public execution/long jail, increased wage, more media exposure, forced financial disclosure, anti-corruption agencies in multi-levels with broad power, and other measures. It helps that the government takes anti-corruption up as one of the top priorities in its agenda.
known 17y ago
Always carry a licensed Pistol for your personal safety if you wanted to fight corruption in India http://to./3h22 http://to./3h22
dagw 17y ago
How will you pick the 100 corrupt bureaucrats? By lottery or by targeting your political enemies? Would you really hang your nephew's corrupt best friend, or would you target the guy most likely to be challenge to your party in the next local election (despite his crimes being relatively minor)? The end result wouldn't be a cut down in corruption, it would just make the corrupt more careful about covering their backs.
nikhilgk 17y ago
Capital punishment, though legal, has been reserved for the ["rarest of the rare"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_India#Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_India#Law) cases by the Supreme Court of India. There have been instances when even serial killers have been pardoned. So it may not even be legally possible to pass such a law.
- jsharpe 17y ago
  I took "hanging" metaphorically. Surely jail time or a heavy fine would serve a similar purpose?
sarvesh 17y ago
There is more to this than what meets the eye. First most of these bureaucrats are underpaid by the government. They can hardly make ends meet, especially so when they have to feed a family of five or six and educate their children. Schools, colleges aren't cheap anymore in India. If you need good education you got to pay up large amounts of money. The government doesn't have any good investment plans for their employees to save for these things. Traditionally, although this is changing with the current generation, it is only the male that works in the family. In terms of economics this just doesn't work for a family anymore in the cities. It is extremely unlikely that these people can work a second job. In some cases the government itself has laws that would prevent them from doing so. I am not trying to defend bribery. Fixing it is not going to be as easy as hanging bureaucrats. If that were the case most elected representatives wouldn't be alive. There is no easy solution. What the article describes is good for the newspaper but not a viable solution to the problem which ingrained very deeply in the society.
dnsworks 17y ago
While hanging out on LiveJournal's Bangalore forum, I've read several stories that make me think even the threat of legal prosecution in India can be mostly meaningless, with people taking years just to get a trial, and afterwards waiting years before there is a spot in prison for them.
netcan 17y ago
Generally, wide enforcement with lenient penalties works better than narrow enforcement with crazy hard penalties. catching 100,000 corrupt officials and putting them in jail for 6 months after a hefty fine and loss of position would probably work better.
- lehmannro 17y ago
  And how would you make up for the sudden loss of 100,000 bureaucrats? I don't have to think too hard to come up with a number of scenarios where this policy will just make things even worse.

rjb 17y ago

I think punitive measures generally do not work. What is great about this is that it breaks someones sub-conscience, snaps them out of their behavior (hopefully), at the very moment of corruption.

sorbus 17y ago

It would reduce corruption - temporarily, at least, even though the killings would probably end up being very political (a bad thing! Consider how many would take it as a chance to get rid of their enemies). It would also scare bunches of people, and corruption would merely go underground as long as the hangings were enforced, before reappearing when enforcement slips. Not to mention the difficulties with getting the government - assumed to be filled with corruption - to do it. It is basically infinitely easier to educate the populace, make them refuse to give bribes when asked, and give them a way of responding to bribes which both refuses to do so, lets them feel part of an anti-bribe community, and reminds the officials that bribes are illegal. Also, I doubt that anyone would argue that murdering anyone who asks for a bribe is better than eliminating the environment which makes people feel like they can ask for bribes.

tokenadult 17y ago

how hard would be to just have the government announce they're going to hang anyone who asks for a bribe, then make a big show about hanging 100 corrupt bureaucrats? Wouldn't that drastically cut corruption down? Thanks for asking a specific factual question. The policy you mention has not worked in China, where it is widely seen as a way to kill off lower-level officials who are insufficiently cooperative with the highest-level officials. China regularly has publicly announced executions for corruption, but it still has pervasive corruption.

blueag 17y ago
From what I heard the corruption in China has decreased due to mulit-prong approach to fight it there. Public execution/long jail, increased wage, more media exposure, forced financial disclosure, anti-corruption agencies in multi-levels with broad power, and other measures. It helps that the government takes anti-corruption up as one of the top priorities in its agenda.

known 17y ago

Always carry a licensed Pistol for your personal safety if you wanted to fight corruption in India http://to./3h22 http://to./3h22

dagw 17y ago

How will you pick the 100 corrupt bureaucrats? By lottery or by targeting your political enemies? Would you really hang your nephew's corrupt best friend, or would you target the guy most likely to be challenge to your party in the next local election (despite his crimes being relatively minor)? The end result wouldn't be a cut down in corruption, it would just make the corrupt more careful about covering their backs.

nikhilgk 17y ago

Capital punishment, though legal, has been reserved for the ["rarest of the rare"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_India#Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_India#Law) cases by the Supreme Court of India. There have been instances when even serial killers have been pardoned. So it may not even be legally possible to pass such a law.

jsharpe 17y ago
I took "hanging" metaphorically. Surely jail time or a heavy fine would serve a similar purpose?

sarvesh 17y ago

There is more to this than what meets the eye. First most of these bureaucrats are underpaid by the government. They can hardly make ends meet, especially so when they have to feed a family of five or six and educate their children. Schools, colleges aren't cheap anymore in India. If you need good education you got to pay up large amounts of money. The government doesn't have any good investment plans for their employees to save for these things. Traditionally, although this is changing with the current generation, it is only the male that works in the family. In terms of economics this just doesn't work for a family anymore in the cities. It is extremely unlikely that these people can work a second job. In some cases the government itself has laws that would prevent them from doing so. I am not trying to defend bribery. Fixing it is not going to be as easy as hanging bureaucrats. If that were the case most elected representatives wouldn't be alive. There is no easy solution. What the article describes is good for the newspaper but not a viable solution to the problem which ingrained very deeply in the society.

dnsworks 17y ago

While hanging out on LiveJournal's Bangalore forum, I've read several stories that make me think even the threat of legal prosecution in India can be mostly meaningless, with people taking years just to get a trial, and afterwards waiting years before there is a spot in prison for them.

netcan 17y ago

Generally, wide enforcement with lenient penalties works better than narrow enforcement with crazy hard penalties. catching 100,000 corrupt officials and putting them in jail for 6 months after a hefty fine and loss of position would probably work better.

lehmannro 17y ago
And how would you make up for the sudden loss of 100,000 bureaucrats? I don't have to think too hard to come up with a number of scenarios where this policy will just make things even worse.