Great predictive quote about prohibition

It is an established fact that alcoholism, cocainism, and morphinism are deadly enemies of life, of health, and of the capacity for work and enjoyment; and a utilitarian must therefore consider them as vices. But this is far from demonstrating that the authorities must interpose to suppress these vices by commercial prohibitions, nor is it by any means evident that such intervention on the part of the government is really capable of suppressing them or that, even if this end could be attained, it might not therewith open up a Pandora's box of other dangers, no less mischievous than alcoholism and morphinism.

- Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism [1927]

Cunliffe calling it wrong already

My gut feeling is the public supports charter schools. That's because they need no persuading  public schools are failing a good percentage of pupils. That's not to say the teachers in particular are at fault; the curriculum; the parents or the pupils themselves. It'll be a combination of all of these factors in different measures.

But there can be little doubt that an alternative approach must be worth a go. At this stage it's only 5 schools, a few hundred pupils. I hope desperately that those given the contracts will give it their very best.

After hearing Larry Williams interviewing the PPTA vice president tonight (a must-listen) and then listening to the outraged, contemptuous reactions to her bombarding Larry's in-box I am further convinced people want this policy to get a fair go.

It's no surprise that the Greens are threatening to undo it at first opportunity. But Cunliffe is also saying he would exclude charter schools because they are "barking mad".

To echo Mr Cunliffe's expression, that "sucks". It's a bad call. It's negative. It's anti-opportunity and anti-working class (to use Labour's descriptor) families that have previously had no option but same old state offering.

That old Strawbs song just popped into my head, "You don't get me I'm part of the Union".

No, I don't get you.

(Hat-tip to Cam Slater for supplying the link)

Nobody will have borrowed Margaret McClure's book, A Civilised Community: A History of Social Security in New Zealand 1898-1998, from the Lower Hutt library more than me.

Throughout there are hints of bias. No problem. I'm biased too. But today's column in the NZ Herald really showcases her left-leaning worldview.

But before you read her column go here first and look at table OT.3.

Then think about the title of her piece,

Holes in safety net grow larger

 

Yet despite those growing holes, the net manages to catch ever greater numbers.

Why assume suicide is always about depression?

Stuff has an article today about the increasing suicide rate amongst baby boomers:

Marie Hull-Brown, a mental health promoter at the Mental Health Foundation, said the figures were distressing but "not surprising".
"Seeing friends die, family moving away and one's home becoming increasingly hard to maintain are losses that are hard to bear, and older people may become depressed about their ability to manage alone, yet not want to see their GP about the black dog that sits on their shoulder."
Conwell said there needed to be improved detection and treatment of depression in older adults, social programmes to reach out to isolated seniors, and access to good health care that allowed them to remain as independent as possible.
If you or someone you know is feeling depressed contact the following services, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week unless otherwise specified.

Some information about exactly why individual elderly people commit suicide would be useful. How many have been diagnosed with some illness they simply do not want to face or put their families through? This generation, more than any prior, favours voluntary euthanasia. Perhaps because it is more secular. Perhaps because baby-boomers have enjoyed more control over their lives and destinations than previous generations. Without that facility I am certain more people are taking action themselves.

In any case I can't see that suicide - causes and prevention - should be treated generically across vastly different age groups. A young person suiciding is likely avoiding life. An ageing person suiciding is quite possibly avoiding death - a long, painful or undignified death that is.

Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe - two astonishing statements

On Radio Live today Sean Plunket had each Labour leadership candidate available for questions.

First Grant Robertson (9:09)

Caller asks "Should you be successful in securing the leadership ... what would you do to address the shameful child abuse and child killing statistics?"

Robertson answers  that we need to address the poverty that drives crime and we should be, "...making sure men are actually getting the help they need to stop this kind of abuse, and it is largely driven by men..."

The claim that most child abuse is perpetrated by men is wrong. I blogged some dissenting voices here, among them Professor David Fergusson who heads the Christchurch Health and Development Study.

Then David Cuncliffe (13:06)

Caller with two special needs children queries what Labour will do about their employment prospects.

Cunliffe answers, "National has cancelled a lot of those sheltered employment schemes that provided a stepping stone into full-time employment..."

As I recall, in Labour's last two terms, parents of special needs young adults were up in arms about Ruth Dyson, Disabilities Minister, forcing the minimum wage onto sheltered workshops predicting closures. The IHC, the major sheltered workshop provider, has closed enterprises since.

"120 Years of Women's Suffrage"

Statistics NZ has just produced the following graphic representation of 120 years of women's suffrage:

Even at full-size the small print is hard to read but the statistics pertain to the years 1893, 1953 and 2013 and show parliamentary representation, percentage of working-age women employed, the percentage women make up of higher education students, average age of at first birth and average number of children. As the first four numbers have increased, the last has decreased.

Might have been useful to add in how working-age women were on social security benefits.

My estimates:
1893 - Strictly speaking, 0 ('outdoor relief' was provided by locally-funded hospitals but no figures were kept)
1953 - 2.5 percent
 2013 - 13 percent

(Interesting to note that the percentage of higher education students that were female in 1893 surpassed the 1953 figure. However there were only 680 university students in 1893. 81 percent were at Christchurch or Otago.)

The Labour Leader Contest

This factionalism was always going to develop. Or, more accurately, accelerate.

Having Labour and their vote-buying policies in the headlines momentarily has been useful for the party, but the post-primary fall-out will obliterate that utility.

(Unless the outsider, the only contender I fear, Shane Jones wins ... )

Strong support for cannabis decriminalisation amongst younger voters

Family First has just released the results of a poll they commissioned through Curia.

Kiwis Say Nope To Dope - Poll

Only one in three NZ’s believe that marijuana should be decriminalised, according to an independent poll of NZ’ers.

In the poll of 1,000 NZ’ers by Curia Market Research, respondents were asked whether they agreed with the statement “If an adult wishes to use a drug such as marijuana, they should be able to do so legally.” Only 33% of respondents agreed, with 60% disagreeing and 7% being unsure or refusing to say. Females were more likely to oppose marijuana being legal, but there was greater support from the 18-40 age group compared to other age groups. National supporters were most opposed to legalising marijuana (68%) compared to other parties.

To Bob's credit he has also released the details.

As an anti-prohibitionist (not pro-cannabis) I'm encouraged to see the younger the voter, the more likely they will be to support the statement. While only 23 percent of 61+ voters were in support, the number jumped to 42% amongst 18-40 year-olds. It'd be fair to say that some will change their views as they age but many will not. Some may even change in the other direction, in favour of decriminalisation.

It's not clear to me how the support breaks down over deciles because I don't know whether Curia has used the education or health ranking system. Decile 1 in health statistics represents the highest socio-economic area; decile 1 in education statistics represents the poorest. The support for decriminalisation is strongest in the decile 10 areas according to Curia. Do you think that would be the richest or poorest? 36 percent in deciles 8-10 versus 28 percent in deciles 1-3.

Men were more likely to support at 38 percent of all male respondents. The percentage for women was 28 percent.

Support was fairly evenly spread amongst the areas described as metro, provincial and rural, although slightly weaker in provincial.

Support was weakest amongst National voters at only 25 percent. Still, even then, one in four National voters think people should be able to use marijuana legally. Progress.

On the increasing risks to children on benefit long-term

In the Herald on Sunday Rodney Hide writes about the increasing likelihood of child abuse and neglect with long term benefit dependency:

A total of 76,000 New Zealanders were born in 1993. About 6000 were subsequently abused or neglected; 3000 became known to the Youth Justice system by the age of 17; and 41,000 - more than half - spent time in a household dependent on a main benefit such as the dole or DPB.
The benefit-supported children were six times more likely to be abused than those who were not benefit-supported. And they were 14 times more likely to be known to Youth Justice.
Those in households benefit-dependent for nine or more years were 13 times more likely to be abused and 29 times more likely to be known to Youth Justice.
Spending less than a year in a benefit-dependent household didn't increase the likelihood of abuse but doubled the chance of trouble with the law.

So the increasing risk for children isn't conjecture, it's factual.

But what about the risk of long-term dependence occurring?

10339 (2013). Jacinda Ardern to the Minister for Social Development (06 Aug 2013): What percentage, if any. of sole parents are estimated to be at medium risk of long term benefit dependency? 

 

Hon Paula Bennett (Minister for Social Development) replied: I am advised that the Ministry uses a range of ways to determine whether clients are considered medium or high risk of long term benefit dependency. Assessments take into account such factors as clients’ length of time in receipt of benefit, the level of their skills or qualifications, their communication skills (including whether English is a second language), any criminal history, and a range of other factors. Due to their caring responsibilities, sole parents are likely to spend longer periods on benefit than other jobseekers. At the end of June 2013, around 10% of sole parent clients were considered medium risk of staying on benefit long term, and around 90% were considered high risk. 

 

 

In defence of cats...

... of which we have too many,  a neighbour videoed 45 tuis (by his count) in a bordering kowhai tree.

And as of today we have also joined ranks with the rats.

In solidarity

Dissatisfaction among public servants

This survey has just been reported on Radio Live. Perhaps the best slant that could be put on it is the response rate of just under one third. Perhaps those who are more positive don't say so:

"The study showed that, in general, public service staff do not feel recognised or rewarded for putting in extra effort or for performing well. Dr Plimmer says the reported rates of bullying are high although the number of workers experiencing sustained and frequent bullying are relatively low.

He said survey respondents are ambivalent about their managers and view them as often basing decisions on politics rather than facts, as weak at taking prudent risks and poor at developing staff."

Wouldn't it be interesting to know whether those who think their managers are politically biased are themselves left or right, or a mix? And also whether these findings have any historic comparison. Were public servants happier under a Labour government?

Update: I asked the head researcher if there were comparable earlier surveys. None exactly the same exists but there are plans to repeat this in a few years plus put the same questions to private sector employees.

The other side of the coin

In the last blog post regarding Lady Stout's ideas about alcohol, I noted there was no mention of women drinking, only men, specifically fathers. Two days later the ODT has another gem of a piece in their '100 years ago' feature:

At the quarterly meeting of the Wellington Licensing Committee on Monday (says the New Zealand Times), Superintendent Ellison spoke strongly on the subject of women loitering in hotels.
He stated that in the Magistrate's Court on the previous Friday morning several women were charged with being idle and disorderly persons, in that they did habitually consort with reputed prostitutes, while the evidence indicated that frequently two and three, and sometimes four or five, of these women were seen congregated together in the Royal Tiger and Cricketers' Arms Hotels.
The superintendent went on to say that he had told the licensees that he would mention the matter at the committee meeting, so that they could attend if they desired. Under section 162 of the Licensing Act, said the superintendent, it was conceded that women had the right to drink in an hotel, but the licensees of such houses could not expect anything but a bad report if they fostered and encouraged a trade with this class of women.
The licensees would also find great difficulty in getting a transfer to another house if they wanted it.
Women had the same right to obtain drink as a man, but they should remain in the hotel only a reasonable time for the consumption of liquor. In the cases referred to, the police found hordes of women congregated together drinking, and he contended that those houses were badly conducted.
If any strange young man fell in with ''these harpies'' at an hotel, continued the superintendent, he would be in need of a young men's protection society. Dr A. M. Arthur, S. M., stated that the committee desired him to say that they would support the superintendent in every respect.

Come to think of it, myself and girlfriend could be spotted loitering at the local pub last Saturday lunchtime over a couple of pinot gris' and salt and pepper calamari. We were not in the company of prostitutes and the young men in our vicinity were quite safe. It may have taken 100 years, but we have learned to drink responsibly in a public place.

"The role of the father"

This piece of writing from 100 years ago published in the ODT today intrigued me.

Lady Stout, who is at present on a visit to Wanganui, gave some plain truths to a public meeting on Sunday concerning the responsibilities of fatherhood.
This was, she said, the century of the woman and the child.
It was claimed that girls should be taught the virtues of wifehood and motherhood, but no one talked of training the boys.
Fatherhood was the highest privilege a man could attain to, yet men were not to be taught that responsibilities were attached to that privilege.
The girls were expected to be trained in every essential that went towards the making of an ideal mother, yet the man was allowed perfect freedom from all responsibility, He could gamble, drink, and commit immorality at will, and do as he liked before and after marriage.
There was no one to warn him of his duty to his wife and children.
Alcohol, Lady Stout continued, did more harm to the physical development of the child than tight lacing and high heels.
Then there was the spiritual aspect of the duties of fatherhood to be remembered.
The racial function consisted of service to the mother and seeing that her health and strength were closely guarded.
Lady Stout referred to the awakening of women and quoted a number of passages showing that an evolution with regard to the relationship between man and woman was in progress.
In New Zealand, she continued, the many youthful imbeciles had to thank their fathers for their affliction.
The sins of the fathers were revisited on the third and fourth generation.
Heredity did not stop at birth.
Lady Stout referred to the white slave traffic, to cruelty to children, which darkened the annals of the courts, to the rescue and maternity homes, packed full of unmarried mothers, and to the asylums and the hospitals.
Would these exist, she asked, if man realised the duties of fatherhood?

Is Lady Stout foreshadowing foetal alcohol syndrome but attributing the incidence to men? Or is her point that the behaviour of drunk, profligate men was not conducive to reproduction and raising of healthy children? She makes no reference to mothers' use of alcohol.

In any case, over the century many men did not learn the "responsibilities of fatherhood" and the state took over their financial role leaving the mother in charge of the "physical development of the child",  and that hasn't provided the perfect answer either.

Making families on welfare

What is welfare for?

I can accept a refugee coming into NZ and getting some emergency relief while they establish themselves and any family members.

But it's not for making family members.

Work and Income has ordered a refugee mother with a 5-month-old baby to attend a seminar about the military-style Limited Service Volunteer scheme.
The young mother, who came here from Burma under the United Nations refugee quota in 2010, was ordered to attend a seminar about the "boot-camp" scheme on August 2, despite having only very basic English, a 2-year-old son and a 5-month-old daughter.
The letter, dated July 29, arrived the day before the seminar and warned: "If you don't attend the seminar or contact us to make an appointment by 02 August 2013, your benefit may reduce or stop."

Yes, the blanket approach from WINZ is probably a waste of time if it doesn't fit her practical circumstances . But what does she understand about welfare? That a state income is no-questions-asked as long as there are children in the picture?

I get very annoyed with the NZ Herald portraying people as victims of an unreasonably heavy-handed state. Whatever she ran from was worse.

(And, yes, none of the 'father' questions are canvassed either).

MSD downplays link between welfare status and child abuse

(A number of people privately and on the blog have said this matter needs a wider hearing hence the release below)

Media Release

MSD DOWNPLAYS LINK BETWEEN WELFARE STATUS AND CHILD ABUSE

Friday, 30 August, 2013

The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has released statistical information that details the overlap between children's contact with the benefit system, and care and protection or youth justice services.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell is welcoming this overdue research. "The last time MSD conducted a similar exercise was 1996 so an update was well overdue. This time the Ministry has followed the 1993 birth cohort to age 17 to explore levels of contact.

Unfortunately, the data is presented in a way that downplays the risks. The benefit cohort is only ever compared to the overall cohort as opposed to the non-benefit  cohort. This produces a finding  that the benefit cohort had a likelihood of contact with CYF that was,  '1.5 times that for the overall cohort.'  However, if the non-benefit cohort was the comparison group, the likelihood would rise to 3.4 times.

When MSD examines children on a benefit for 9 or more years who have experienced a substantiated finding of abuse or neglect, they describe the risk as only three times greater than the total population cohort. Again, if this benefit cohort was compared to the non benefit group the increased likelihood rises to nearly 13 times greater."

Mitchell goes on to express her disappointment that MSD then claims the association is about low income, not benefit status. "This makes a mockery of analysing the overlap data. Essentially MSD has written off the correlation between benefit status and increased risk of abuse to low income."

"What MSD needs to do is compare similar groups of low income children with differing sources of income ie from work or a benefit, and their respective contact with CYF.

In the mean time these findings show why welfare reforms aimed at reducing long-term benefit dependency are so important for the safety and well-being of children."

CPAG loses again

Just released:

Judgment: CPAG v Attorney-General

Friday, 30 August 2013, 1:10 pm
Press Release: NZ Court of Appeal COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
MEDIA RELEASE
CHILD POVERTY ACTION GROUP INCORPORATED (CPAG) v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(CA457/2012) [2013] NZCA 402
PRESS SUMMARY
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment. The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at www.courtsofnz.govt.nz.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) challenging part of the Working for Families package introduced in 2004.
CPAG alleged that the in-work tax credit (forming part of the package) discriminated against people who receive an income-tested benefit. That was because the in-work tax credit was available only for those in full-time employment who were not receiving an income-tested benefit. This is known as the “off-benefit rule”. CPAG alleged this breached the Human Rights Act 1993 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of employment status (which includes persons in receipt of a benefit).
The Human Rights Review Tribunal and the High Court each ruled against CPAG’s challenge to the off-benefit rule. Those decisions have been upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with the High Court on one aspect of the appeal but this did not affect the final outcome. The Court of Appeal found that the off-benefit rule, on its face, subjected beneficiaries to differential treatment which amounted to a material disadvantage.
But, in agreement with the Human Rights Review Tribunal and the High Court, the Court of Appeal has found that the off-benefit rule is a justified limit under s 5 of the Bill of Rights on the right to be free from discrimination by reason of employment status and does not therefore breach the Bill of Rights.
This is because the in-work tax credit deliberately created an earnings gap between people on a benefit and people who are working. The objective was to incentivise people into work and improve incomes for families with children. CPAG accepted this objective was important enough to justify limiting the right to freedom from discrimination but argued that the off-benefit rule was disproportionate to the objectives to be achieved.
The Court of Appeal has held that the discriminatory impact of the off-benefit rule is not out of proportion to the goal of incentivising people into work, and the evidence established that it only impairs the right to be free from discrimination to the minimum extent necessary to achieve the objective.
CPAG’s appeal has been dismissed accordingly but with no order for costs against it

Child abuse rates in beneficiary population: MSD cover-up by omission

Warning: laborious statistical workings below

I've hesitated to label a new Ministry of Social Development factsheet a "cover-up" but having chewed over it for a few days I've decided that's exactly what it is.

For the first time MSD has examined a "birth cohort ever present in New Zealand" and the overlapping contact with the benefit system, care and protection or youth justice services in the years to age 17. They used 1993.

The opening summary states:

"While most supported by the benefit system in childhood had no contact with care and protection services, as a population group their likelihood of contact was 1.5 times that for the cohort overall."

If you think that seems low there's a reason. Throughout the factsheet the benefit group is compared to  the total cohort (which includes the benefit group). Why not compare the benefit group to the non-benefit group?

Maybe because the result doesn't look so good.

Let me demonstrate:

 Here's MSD calculations:

Of 41,000 benefit cohort 12,000 (80% of all known) had contact with C&P =.293
Of 76,000 total cohort 15,000 (100% of all known) had contact with C&P = .197

.293 is 1.5 times .197

But let's look at the non-benefit cohort

Of 35,000 non-benefit cohort 3,000 (20% of all known) had contact with C&P = .086

.293 is 3.4 times .086

Children who appeared in the benefit system were 3.4 times more likely to have contact with C&P than non-beneficiary children. Nowhere in the factsheet does this likelihood appear.

Being known to C&P doesn't necessarily mean a child has been abused or neglected. There is however also data available on the incidence of substantiated findings.

The paper says "looking at the estimated 18 percent of the cohort who spent at least nine years of their first 17 years supported by the benefit system...27 percent had substantiated findings of abuse or neglect (a rate more than three times that for the overall cohort...)"

Again the authors make the comparison to the overall cohort and not the non-benefit cohort. Let's do that with the data available in the next table:

We know from the previous table that 27 percent of the 9+ years benefit group had at least one substantiated finding of  abuse or neglect. The 9+ group represents 18 percent (table above) of the total cohort of 76,000 or 13,680.  So 3,694 of them had a finding.


3,694 is 60 percent of the total children with a finding. Total children with a finding must therefore be 6,157.

3,694 findings (60%) amongst 13,680 (9+ benefit group) = .27
739 findings (12%) amongst 35,000 (non-benefit group) = .021

.27 is 12.9 times .021

Children who spend 9 or more years in the benefit system are almost 13 times more likely to experience a substantiated finding of abuse or neglect than children never on a benefit. That's more meaningful than a likelihood, "more than 3 times that for the overall cohort."



Yet turning to the "discussion" section of the factsheet, MSD says:

"The findings are consistent with associations between low income and measures of child maltreatment found both across and within countries. They do not however establish that being supported by the benefit system causes a child to be more at risk of these outcomes."

Right out of the CPAG handbook. It's a pretty pointless exercise then, analysing benefit and CYF overlap only to write the association off to "low income".

Graph of the day

The graph below shows how many of the 1993 birth cohort who spent time on a benefit (41,000) became known to CYF and later to youth justice by age 17.

For context the total birth cohort for 1993 was 76,000.

Cunliffe crying crocodile tears

I'm listening to David Cunliffe's slightly hysterical state of the nation speech as he declares his bid for the Labour leadership.

In amongst the many pleas to the inferior state of affairs under National he says he's tired of
" ...watching hope die in the eyes of our young..."

Let's briefly hold that up to statistical scrutiny.

Teenage birthrate going down since 2007.

Youth suicide rate is dropping, albeit a very recent trend.

The youth Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET) rate down.

Youth prosecuted offending is down.

Youth unemployment dropping slightly.

Child abuse substantiations are up and that can be for a myriad of reasons; more reporting, different processing, or simply more abuse.

No flag bearer for National, I am interested in research and reality (and the line between those is often murky).
But match the following to Mr Cunliffe's 'hope dying in our young' speech:

 “Researchers from The University of Auckland suggest that the findings show broad overall improvement in the health and wellbeing of young people."

New Zealand youth engaging in less risky pursuits

2 August 2013

Drinking, drugs and other risky behaviours are on the decline according to a nationwide report on New Zealand youth launched at Parliament recently.
“The Health and Wellbeing of New Zealand Secondary School Students” report published by The University of Auckland and Auckland UniServices Ltd is the third in the Youth 2000 Survey Series which provides insights into trends of adolescent experience from 2001.
The 2012 survey was completed by 8,500 secondary school students and provides the country’s most comprehensive data on current adolescent concerns and behaviour.
Researchers from The University of Auckland suggest that the findings show broad overall improvement in the health and wellbeing of young people.
In particular, the report shows a marked reduction in tobacco, alcohol consumption, binge drinking and illegal drug use as well as lower rates of dangerous driving and small positive shifts in school life.
 Primary investigator from the University, Dr Terryann Clark, says that the significant overall reduction in risk-taking behaviours among adolescents is exciting and is cause for optimism.
“The report indicates some strong positive emerging trends which represent huge gains for the future of New Zealand,” she says.
Other results indicate negative changes in young people’s lives. For example, youth from across the social spectrum are increasingly aware of parental concerns around not having enough money for food, and increasing numbers of young people are unable to secure part-time work or access healthcare when needed.
Divisions continue between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ particularly in healthcare and nutrition, and in outlook for future education and training.
 In general, the rates of young New Zealanders who are emotionally distressed, bullied, using contraception inconsistently, and/or are overweight remain static.
 “The report series builds a rich and compelling picture of the health and development of young New Zealanders and elucidates the key areas of importance that we as a society needs to invest in order to nurture positive, healthy and vibrant generations of New Zealanders,” says the Instigator of the Youth 2000 Survey Series and Clinical Director Mental Health Services at Counties Manukau DHB, Peter Watson. “The findings will be enormously valuable to policymakers, schools, parents and caregivers.”
The full report findings are now publically available at The University of Auckland Youth 12 site. Separate reports including findings for Maori adolescents using the same survey data will be released from October 2013.

Lovers aren't the only ones who give second chances

Michael Laws writes about the car-boot victim who has forgiven the car-boot offender.

Three months ago she was placed in the boot of her new car by her deranged, drugged boyfriend - fell out - and was then dragged 1.7 kilometres behind the car as he zoomed off...she turned up in court last week to support him as he battles lawyers and the justice system to be there for her...Yeah, but he was on drugs, Ana excuses. He'd just come out of prison and was on a bit of a booze-drugs binge. Perfectly understandable. Not his fault - it was the drugs. Give him another chance: chur, bro.

When this story broke earlier this week I wasn't surprised. He'll have her tied around his little finger. He'll be laying on the deeply contrite pathos. She'll be confusing pity with love.

But she is only as malleable as parole board members. They must be constantly lulled into the same sense of self-certainty about an offender's true remorse and intention to never ever re-offend. Well, maybe not self-certainty but at least somewhat confident that another  chance is merited.

Unfortunately the trust is too often misplaced and even as young as 26, you can bet your bottom dollar on it this guy has already had more than his fair share of second and subsequent chances.