'People will forgive you for being wrong, but they will never forgive you for being right - especially if events prove you right while proving them wrong.' Thomas Sowell
Here is a concise summary of Section 125 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):
Section 125 - Order for Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents
Key Points:
A Magistrate can order a person with sufficient means to provide monthly maintenance to:His wife who is unable to maintain herself
The Magistrate can order interim maintenance and expenses of the proceedings to be paid during the pendency of the maintenance application.
Failure to comply with the maintenance order can result in the Magistrate issuing a warrant to recover the amount or sentencing the person to up to 1 month of imprisonment.
A wife is not entitled to maintenance if she is living in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason, or is living separately by mutual consent.
The nature of proceedings under Section 125 is civil, not strictly criminal, and the provisions are to be construed liberally for the welfare of the wife and children.
In recent yearsthe antitrust division of America’s Department of Justice has gone on a crusade against corporate mergers, filing a record number of complaints in an attempt to stop the biggest businesses from getting even bigger. With few exceptions, these efforts have been thwarted by the courts. That it is so hard to get a judge to intervene in business reflects the work of an institution known more for its free-market influence on economics than the law: the University of Chicago.
Fifty years ago this autumn Richard Posner, a federal judge and Chicago scholar, published his “Economic Analysis of Law”. Now in its 9th edition, the book set off an avalanche of ideas from Chicago school economists, including Gary Becker, Ronald Coase and Milton Friedman, which passed into the folios of America’s judges and lawyers. The “law-and-economics” movement made the courts more reasoned and rigorous. It also changed the verdicts judges handed out. Research has found that those exposed to its ideas are more opposed to regulators and less likely to enforce antitrust laws, and tend to impose prison terms more often and for longer.
Links between economics and the law have long been studied. In “Leviathan”, published in 1651, Thomas Hobbes wrote that secure property rights, which are needed for a system of economic exchange, are a legal fiction that emerged only with the modern state. By the late 19th century, legal fields that overlapped with economics, such as matters of taxation, were being analysed by economists.
With the arrival of the law-and-economics movement, every legal question was suddenly addressed in the context of the incentives of actors and the changes these produced. In “Crime and punishment: an economic approach” (1968), Becker argued that, rather than being a balancing-act between punishment and the opportunity for reform, sentences act mainly as a deterrent: the literal “price of crime”. Harsh sentences, he argued, reduce criminal activity in much the same way as high prices cut demand. With the caveat that a greater chance of arrest is a better deterrent than longer prison sentences, Becker’s theorising has since been borne out by decades of empirical evidence.
Too steep?
In the movement’s early days, “the legal academy paid little attention to our work”, recalls Guido Calabresi, a former dean of Yale Law School and another of the field’s founding fathers. Two things changed this. The first was Mr Posner’s bestselling textbook, in which he wrote that “it may be possible to deduce the basic formal characteristics of law itself from economic theory.” Mr Posner was a jurist, who wrote in a language familiar to other jurists. Yet he was also steeped in the economic insights of the Chicago school. His book successfully thrust the law-and-economics movement into the legal mainstream.
The second factor was a two-week programme called the Manne Economics Institute for Federal Judges, which ran from 1976 until 1998. This was funded by businesses and conservative foundations, and involved an all-expenses-paid stay at a beachside hotel in Miami. It was no holiday, however, even if those who went nicknamed the conference “Pareto in the Palms”. The curriculum was extremely demanding, taught by economists including Friedman and Paul Samuelson, both of whom had won Nobel prizes.
image: the economist
By the early 1990s nearly half the federal judiciary had spent a few weeks in Miami. Those who attended included two future justices on the Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas (an arch conservative) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (his liberal counterpart). Ginsburg would later surprise colleagues by voting with the conservative majority on antitrust cases, applying the so-called “consumer welfare standard” championed by the Manne programme. This states that a corporate merger is anticompetitive only if it raises the price or reduces the quality of goods or services. Ginsburg wrote that the instruction she received in Miami “was far more intense than the Florida sun”.
In a paper under review by the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Elliot Ash of eth Zurich, Daniel Chen of Princeton University and Suresh Naidu of Columbia University treat the Manne programme as a natural experiment, comparing the decisions of every alumnus before and after their attendance at the conference. They then use an artificial-intelligence approach called “word embedding” to assess the language in judges’ opinions in more than a million circuit- and district- court cases.
The researchers find that federal judges were more likely to use terms such as “efficiency” and “market”, and less likely to use those such as “discharged” and “revoke”, after time spent in Miami. Manne alumni took what the authors characterised as the “conservative” stance on antitrust and other economic cases 30% more often in the years after attending. They also imposed prison sentences 5% more frequently and of 25% greater length. The effect became stronger still after 2005, when a Supreme Court decision gave federal judges greater discretion over sentencing.
That researchers are turning the unforgiving lens of economic analysis on law and economics itself is a promising trend. The dismal science has come a long way since the heyday of the Chicago school. Thanks in large part to the empiricism of behavioural economics, it is less wedded to abstractions like the perfectly rational actor. This has softened some of the Chicago school’s harsher edges. But it will nevertheless take time for judges to modify their approach. As Mr Ash notes: “The Chicago school economists may all be retired or dead, but Manne alumni continue to be active members of the judiciary.” In courtrooms across America, Mr Posner’s influence will live on for decades to come.
Explain why demand curves slope downwards from left to right and supply curves slope
upwards from left to right.
The downward slope of demand curves and the upward slope of supply curves can be explained by the underlying economic principles of consumer behavior and producer behavior. Here's an explanation of why demand curves slope downwards from left to right and supply curves slope upwards from left to right:
Law of Demand: The law of demand states that, ceteris paribus (all else being equal), as the price of a good or service increases, the quantity demanded decreases, and vice versa. This inverse relationship between price and quantity demanded is the main reason why demand curves slope downwards. When the price of a product decreases, consumers are willing and able to purchase more of it. Conversely, when the price increases, consumers tend to reduce their demand for the product.
Substitution Effect: The downward slope of the demand curve can be attributed to the substitution effect. When the price of a product rises, consumers often seek alternative products that are relatively cheaper. This substitution behavior contributes to a decrease in the quantity demanded at higher prices.
Income Effect: Changes in price can also affect consumers' purchasing power and, therefore, their demand for a product. When the price of a product decreases, consumers may have more disposable income available, allowing them to purchase a larger quantity of the product. This income effect reinforces the negative relationship between price and quantity demanded.
On the other hand, the upward slope of supply curves can be explained by the following factors:
Law of Supply: The law of supply states that, ceteris paribus, as the price of a good or service increases, the quantity supplied also increases, and vice versa. This positive relationship between price and quantity supplied is the primary reason why supply curves slope upwards. When the price of a product rises, producers have a greater incentive to supply more of it to the market to maximize their profits. As a result, the quantity supplied increases.
Production Costs: Changes in production costs can influence the supply of goods and services. As the price of inputs such as labor, raw materials, or energy increases, producers face higher production costs. To cover these increased costs and maintain profitability, producers may require a higher price for their products, leading to an upward slope of the supply curve.
Technological Advancements: Technological advancements can impact the supply of goods and services. Innovations and improvements in technology can enhance production efficiency and lower costs. When production costs decrease, producers can supply larger quantities at each price level, resulting in an upward-sloping supply curve.
In summary, the downward slope of demand curves can be explained by the law of demand, the substitution effect, and the income effect, while the upward slope of supply curves can be attributed to the law of supply, production costs, and technological advancements. These fundamental economic principles help to explain the relationship between price and quantity demanded or supplied in markets.
