Mr Doolan said the data suggested that child killings increased in line with unemployment in the late 1980s and early 90s, but were now trending downwards as the economy improved.
I am less sure about this link. Look at the figures;
We had full employment through the 60s and most of the 70s. Add the 60s and 70s together and there were 179 deaths. Add the 80s and 90s together, when we had soaring and peak unemployment, and there were 169 deaths.
In 1971 there were 909,000 children (0-14). In 1994 there were 828,000. Today there are 867,000. Because of the ageing population although the overall population has grown the numbers of children have been relatively steady.
No. I'm not buying it.
The number of children abused increased by 15.4 per cent to a new record of 10,159 in the financial year to the end of June.
The number might be a rise on the financial year to June 2006 but it's a drop on the calendar year 2006 from 10,873 (again not including 'neglect').
3 comments:
I have no problem with such a relationship at all.The Muldoon era showed repeatedly and reliably that moving from a full employment economy increased crime rates, particularly those that social involvement could be expected to moderate e.g. those reflecting both social competence and impulse control such as domestic violence, child violence and sexual abuse or offending.
Since deregulation of the economy we have seen a couple of generations of 'hard core' unemployed - I'd be surprised if the peaks in the graph don't coincide with this. Since that time it's questionable, I can recall it being said there was no unemployment in Flaxmere a short time ago, or something akin to this, which were hollow words only fit for a Tui billboard. My belief is that unemployment (including benefits) have remained reasonably stable over the 80's, 90's despite claims that unemployment figures have reduced ... so with stable figures indicative of insular lifestyles and corresponding reduction in impulse control, and a reduced number of kids, then a reduced rate of child abuse and related deaths.
But you haven't explained why we had more child deaths due to maltreatment during the period of full or low employment.
The number of child deaths are very small with large fluctuations. I think trying to claim a link to anything is therefore fraught.
Lindsay, deaths by non accidental process have, intuitively by many, been associated with those on benefits i.e. statements such as 'we pay them to kill their offspring.'
Combine abuse figures and deaths and they will correlate with unemployment figures historically, and with unemployment figures and other benefits (sickness, invalids,+) latterly i.e with statistics indicative of insular lifestyles.
Child death figures in and of themselves are very small, & indicative of aberration upon an abuse base, & so do indeed fluctuate considerably ... but of course this may just be indicative of the depersonalisation and excess (suicides, child wallopings)associated with the increased use of SSRI's (fluoxitines such as prozac) in recent times. After all if the use of these in the USA is sufficient to poison the waterways, cause fresh water lobster to shed their eggs prematurely, then ...
May just be nothing as primitive as males dealing to the offspring of their partners that are not their progeny.
Post a Comment