The Sunday Star Times has featured leaked June 2006 crime stats. Many regions have recorded significant increases especially in violent crime and the police are blaming the lower drinking age and increased drug-taking.
The editorial raises one point not often mentioned. There was a baby blip in 1990-91 and we may be seeing the results of this as these youngsters reach the 15 - 24 age group, when most offending occurs. Some also predict a rise in teen DPB numbers as these kids start reproducing. In the five years to 2006 the percentage of 18 - 19 year-olds on the DPB climbed from 2.5 to 2.9 percent (there are more recipients younger than this but I don't have similar data for those). Given many youth offenders come from welfare-dependent, fatherless homes we are just setting up more failure.
This is graphically illustrated by the story of the young man who killed Lois Dear;
"He is well hated. A lot of people want to kill him."
The woman said in recent years her cousin had changed.
"The first I heard of his problems was when he got a girlfriend."
That Tokoroa girlfriend was the mother of one of his two young sons born within a month of each other, the cousin said.
Obviously not so disliked that two girls didn't want to have his kids. He has already left his legacy. His progeny will likely go on to be high risk adolescents in their turn. He has made his contribution to the cycle of deprivation.
So I'll ask the question again. If the mothers weren't guaranteed an income from the state would they have been so keen?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Spot on with that last question - but will we ever change?
The question I would ask is - do they have jobs and if not why not? The benefit means people don't have to be in a financial position to have kids. They expect the state to pay. What is completely idiotic is the government paying mothers who get pregnant on the DPB, to have more kids.
Gloria
Post a Comment