Rationalizing the most ridiculous (I'm Back)

Sorry, I have been very busy lately. My schedule went to hell and now I am playing catch-up in new classes, but that is no excuse! I should be able to get back in the blogging groove, so do not despair.

With that said, my ridiculous thing of the day is this:

A man got a prison term longer than prosecutors and defense attorneys had agreed to -- all because of Larry Bird.

The lawyers reached a plea agreement Tuesday for a 30-year term for a man accused of shooting with an intent to kill and robbery. But Eric James Torpy wanted his prison term to match Bird's jersey number 33.

``He said if he was going to go down, he was going to go down in Larry Bird's jersey,'' Oklahoma County District Judge Ray Elliott said Wednesday. ``We accommodated his request and he was just as happy as he could be.

``I've never seen anything like this in 26 years in the courthouse. But, I know the DA is happy about it.''

But if that is not ridiculous enough for you, here is Steven Levitt economically justifying Torpy's decision:

If Eric Torpy discounts the future at 20% a year, spending three years in prison 30 years from now is equivalent to spending an extra 1.35 days in prison in present value terms. In other words, under the assumption of a 20% discount rate, this guy should be willing to trade being free now for 1.35 days for adding an extra 3 years on the end of the term. It is amazing how discounting works. (The calculation is .8^30 to figure out how much a day in prison 30 years from now is worth in present value terms.)

So, this isn’t such an expensive way to honor Larry Bird after all. My guess is that getting the national headlines was worth it to him. Maybe Larry Bird will even send him an autographed copy.

Damn economists, always rationalizing everything (god I love it). And on the topic of rational/selfish action, Gary Becker (Levitt's partner in crime) had this to say about Hurricane Katrina contributers:

The impulse toward goodness, in fact, varies according to circumstance. In an experiment by economists at the University of Chicago, the University of Maryland, the University of Nevada at Reno and East Carolina University, residents of Pitt County, N. C., were asked to contribute to a center to study natural-hazard mitigation, as a response to the devastation caused by Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd in eastern North Carolina.

Economists found, unsurprisingly, that people were much more likely to contribute when their donations entered them into a lottery in which they could win several hundred dollars. But they also found that contributions of white men rose by a similar rate when beautiful white women were asking for money.

In most altruistic acts, there is something in it for the giver. "At one level, altruism has a selfish component to it," said the economist Gary Becker, a pioneer in the analysis of altruistic giving.

People get several things from acting altruistically. There's the enlightened self-interest: the needy may feel they are more likely to receive help when they themselves are in trouble. Then there's the inner glow that comes from acting according to one's ideals: be it giving to needy children or to church on Sunday. Having a good deed made known also has its glory, as well as avoiding the stigma of not contributing when everyone else in the congregation, alumni association or social club has.

Cool stuff.

Back in Black,
Mr. Alec