These days, news about shootings, organized gangs, and knives in the city of Barcelona are accumulating. I don't know if we are facing a change in trend or simply more media visibility. But they have all reminded me of an economist who received the Nobel Prize for formulating a surprising question: what if part of crime could be analyzed as an economic decision?Gary Becker revolutionized economics by applying his tools to areas that until then seemed reserved for psychology or sociology. He studied discrimination, family, education, and also crime. His approach was as simple as it was provocative: many people who commit crimes make, consciously or intuitively, a calculation between the expected benefits and costs of their future action.This cost depends on three factors. Firstly, on the benefit that the crime provides. Secondly, on the probability of being arrested and convicted. And, thirdly, on the severity of the penalty if punishment is ultimately imposed.Imagine a thief who expects to get a big haul and believes they have very little chance of being caught. Even if the penalties are high, the risk they perceive may continue to pay off for them. On the other hand, if they consider it very likely to end up before a judge, the incentive to commit a crime decreases considerably. From this perspective, police and judicial effectiveness can exert a deterrent effect as important as the toughening of penalties.Naturally, not all crimes respond to a rational calculation. There are impulsive aggressions, mental health problems, emotional violence, or behaviors difficult to explain through economic incentives. Becker never maintained the contrary. His theory refers above all to those crimes in which there is planning, organization, and an expectation of benefit: robberies, bank heists, store assaults…Therefore, when news about criminal gangs or organized crime appears, it is worth remembering this theory. The question is no longer just how many crimes are committed, but also what incentives those who commit them perceive. Do they consider the benefit to be worth the risk? Do they believe the probability of being caught is low? Do they perceive criminal consequences as a real cost?Economics does not replace law or criminology. It offers another way of observing the same phenomenon. And herein lies the value of Becker's contributions. More than half a century later, his theory continues to invite us to ask ourselves these questions because, if part of delinquency responds to incentives, rethinking these incentives can be the first step towards designing more effective policies.

We all agree that it is unacceptable for people to be arrested hundreds of times for petty theft and robbery, only to then continue acting with impunity on our streets. Understandably, this reality generates frustration, distrust, and a perception of failure in both the police and judicial systems, which is always exploited by those who do not hesitate to manipulate it for political gain.

The scandals surrounding the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party), involving corruption and instances of gender-based harassment, are not only deeply concerning because they call into question the integrity of the political system and undermine public trust, but also foreshadow an increasingly likely shift in power towards the far right. To this context must be added judicial decisions incompatible with the rule of law, to put it mildly. Some experts, such as former magistrate José Antonio Martín Pallín, have openly spoken of judicial coups. The most grotesque recent episode has been the Supreme Court's ruling that convicted former Attorney General Álvaro García Ortiz after a highly substandard investigation. The five justices who voted in favor of the conviction belong to the most conservative wing of the judiciary.

He has done it: he has confessed some facts that he has not committed. Worse still, he has undertaken to pay substantial compensation for the repair of the damage made to a police van that he has not damaged, and compensation for the injuries of an officer who fell while beating him to arrest him. This decision hurts in anyone's soul: to defend one's dignity and truth, or to give in and buy security. This confession will swell the poisoned statistics that tomorrow will be used to show that the system works: police forces write up statements, the prosecution and private prosecutors hold up charges based on these statements, and finally a sentence is passed that closes the circle and validates the whole gear. Once the agreement is closed, a trial will be held. This trial is reduced to a bargain: the accusations reduce the penalty to ensure the accused person does not enter prison, in exchange for admitting the facts and the penalty. Our confession will serve to show that the police officers arrested the right person, that the prosecution and the other charges also charged the right person, and that the sentence has convicted the right person. What is clearer than a confession, to show that someone is guilty?