The sad reality of the “underclass”
September 30th, 2008 at 7:58 am by David FarrarA Manukau District Court Judge has sent his notes to the NZ Herald to highlight a incredibly sad case in South Auckland, which is almost considered mundane now. They key facts:
- Seven years ago, a 12 year old girl and her her friend were pretending to be prostitutes in Otahuhu, intending to run off with money after being paid, without delivering the service
- The friend got away but she did not
- Despite telling the then 38 year old man that she was 12, he raped her
- The man has just been sentenced to ten years jail for the rape
- The victim, now 19, gave evidence from jail where she is serving time for aggravated rape burglary
- The friend is also in jail – for manslaughter
This is tragic on so many levels. The rapist is eligible for parole in just six years. Where were the parents as the 12 year olds were pretending to be prostitutes? How was she allowed to drop out of school at 12 years old?
Related posts:
- How Labour’s new sentences will work
- A good case for three strikes
- Another example for three strikes
- Alleged rape victim charged with making a false complaint
September 30th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Whilst having no doubt that this reprobate deserved all that was coming to him.
I am amazed that CPS got a result here. The two girls can hardly be described as reliable types for evidence.
Think the previous GF sank him.
Fairplay.
What a sad situation.
Hard to understand how two youngsters hatched such a plan. The Parents need to also be censured.
At least the Justice system got a result!
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 8:14 am
You need to correct this post DPF. The victim is serving time for aggravated robbery, not “aggravated rape” as you stated.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Helen said there was no underclass.
So, what do you mean?
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 8:18 am
It proves the point that in this beautiful country we’re never short of scum, losers, and no-hopers. We have far too many people with neither aspirations nor education, whom are only too keen to extend their hands to collect welfare.
Enough is enough.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 8:26 am
“sad” is only one word that could be used to describe a situation that represents failure at so many levels it is difficult to drill down deep enough to find a cause.
“sad” that a 36 year old man would want to pay for sex with a 12 year old
Vote:“sad” that a 12 year old was out there “offering” herself
“sad” that a 12 year old coukld conceive of such a plot when she should be dressing a barbie doll
“sad” that her parents (presumably) weren’t aware of what their daughter was up to
“sad” that a 12 year old had a con job as her highest aspiration
“sad” that she will now be a permanent victim with this event to blame for every bad choice she makes for the rest of her life.
“sad” that I can say “Why am I not surprised or deeply shocked by this?”
September 30th, 2008 at 8:28 am
The reality is the authorities know who the underclass are but refuse because of PC rubbish mindsets to actually do anyhting for them.
when our kids go wrong we step in to put them on the right track.
the authorities are suppossed to do the same on our behalf for these people.
it costs all of us money, lost time and social dislocation when we don’t put these things right.
this is so evident in child abuse.
Vote:We know who the likely suspects are (7od % of the pop)
but it doesn’t get dealt to, just stupid laws that don’t work.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:33 am
“Helen said there was no underclass.
So, what do you mean?”
Because when she put the tax rate up to 39%, that money was used to fix the social problems of the nineties. There is no more social problems as a result. Otherwise what would be the point of increasing taxes? QED.
Anyway, I’m sure it will all be cleared up in 5 minutes.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 8:38 am
The girl intended to defraud. No surprise she’s now in jail for robbery.
This story is not sad – What kind of child pretends to be a prostitute? This isn’t wave a thigh at passing motorists type stuff, this is getting into car, setting the price and playing it through. Oh right, “society” is to blame. Bullshit. It’s a lesson that criminal activity has uncontrollable consequences. The girl didn’t learn the lesson the first time and now she’s in jail. The man went to jail too, but there are no details of the court case. As far as the limited newspaper story goes, he was getting what he was paying for. I can only assume that the criminal intent of the girl was overlooked and she was assigned “innocent 12 year old status” on a moral basis by the same immoral liberal minds that made prostitution morally acceptable and legal and tried a man for engaging in that legal transaction. And no doubt liberals will argue that the legal transaction of prostituion can be voided by the prostitute “saying no” at any point of the service thus resulting in rape charges. These will be the same liberals who believe street sex is all cuddles and kisses and checking IDs on drivers licences. Or maybe inspecting the girls teeth. Morons. Christ, talk about a bob each way.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 8:42 am
The question should be, what do you make of a leader who, when faced with mounting evidence of the existence of an underclass, refuses to even acknowledge it’s existence because to do so does not mesh with the politics as they see it?
The answer is , the same as I think of a leader who refuses to acknowledge the guilt of a senior minister in dodgy dealings despite all available evidence pointing to it.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 8:44 am
To me the main thing is as you say where are the parents. In all cases of young people being in trouble, drunk on the streets at midnight as we so often see on television I’d like to know where the parents are and why aren’t they exercising their responsibilities over their children.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Incredibly sad, but we as a society lack the necessary fortitude and discipline to correct the underlying issues. I have a neice who at the age of 12 decided she did not want to go to school anymore and would rather spend her days smoking pot with the other hood rats in her neighbourhood. Cue endless family conferences where at times 12 (12!) different staff representing several social work agencies, CYFS and the police are in attendance. The general tone of the meeting goes like this: Ok, so you don’t want to go to school? Well, lets talk about that. A lot of talk ensues. At the end of it they ask her again if she wants to go to school. No? Well lets talk about that some more. And set up some more meetings while we’re at it. All of this, let me remind you, because a little girl won’t go to school. Meanwhile, in my own home I give my son a clip around the ear for swearing at his mother. He tells me he will take me to the cops. Kids are actually crying out for some discipline and moral guidance, but we respond with our weak willed cheesy moral relativism. I despair, because I don’t see the political will in any party to arrest this decline. Liberalism is a cancer infecting and weakening the whole of society. I see a direct corelation between the lack, no not just lack – the actual prohibiting by the state – of family discipline and the current crime rate in this once proud nation.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Perhaps we should re-criminalise prostitution? It is and always has been degrading and soul destroying for all those involved in it. Making it legal has just lowered the bar and so we can’t arrest prostitutes,only those under age. This government has a lot to answer for in my opinion.
Anyway I would like the next government to investigate either- re criminalising prostitution and returning our laws to their previous setting
OR – trialling the Swedish model where those who engage the services of a prostitute are liable to be arrested. Apparently the law has worked very well in Sweden.
[DPF: This happened when prostitution was illegal, or solicitation was anyway]
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 9:06 am
“the same immoral liberal minds that made prostitution morally acceptable and legal and tried a man for engaging in that legal transaction.”
Goodgod, there can be NO legal transaction for sex between a man and a 12 year old, regardless of whether prostitution is legal or not. I can agree with most of your post, and agree that the girl’s criminal activity has been overlooked, but regardless of her “intent to defraud” there can be no justification for a 36 year old raping a 12 year old. And it is rape, given her age.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 9:19 am
In the early 1970s under the Kirk government we saw a shift in the ethical and moral compass of the ruling classes lead by the Labour administration and founded on policies such as the DPB there was a concerted effort to take the emphasis off te family unit of Mum Dad and the children where Dad went to work to provide for the family and Mum stayed home to manage the house and care for the children
The current PM and many of those now in Parliament and the civil service where the propoents of the New Order. They decided that the old ways were wrong. So they embarked on an orchestrated campaign to undermine the traditional family unit and replace it with a solo female parent model.
Men where subtly undermined as the providers and labelled as rapists wife beaters child abusers. The plan worked spectacularly.
In some areas of the country the majority of boys in school have no male role model No father No male teachers.
Just a sad parade of uncles ocupying Mums bed for time to time.
Those of us who campaigned and pointed out the consquences during the 70s and 80s where shouted down.
Sadly we have been proved right but that doesnt hold any satisfaction for the destruction that Clark et al have caused.
Maybe those who still think she WAS a great PM should carefully reflect on the damage she and her comrades have bought on a significant portion of the citizens.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 9:23 am
DPF, one correction: according to the NZ Herald, the kid wanted to rob the man after having sex, but changed her mind:
So they not justed wanted to rob him. But I’m sure it’s the policies of the 80s and 90s that led to all this. It has nothing to do with social liberals.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I was thoroughly disgusted to see Tim Barnett receiving flowers and pats on the back for legitimising this terrible social evil. Prostitution must be *eradicated*, not legalised and certainly not glamorised as our amoral TV programmers seem to think. Our legislators have made it easier for absentee landlords to exploit vulnerable communities; our poorest are treated like cattle and milked for rent and gambling dollars, and now their daughters are regularly selling the tattered remnants of their dignity on the streets of New Zealand. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
Vote:http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2008/05/preying-on-the.html
September 30th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Labour’s solution to this:
Vote:Give all the killers, rapists and robbers more money. They only did it because of poverty caused by blood-sucking rich pricks . . . . like John Key.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Bearhunter, like I said, you probably think street sex is all about checking IDs and hugs between two intelligent, emotionally stable, individuals – instead of the plain sex for cash transaction it is. A 12 year old prostitute, or someone who claims to be 12 years old to halt/con a deal of sex for money, is neither likely to attract a sane client or be a person of veracity themselves. It is not a case of innocent 12 year old raped by older man. That’s what liberals won’t understand. Generally they pick and choose morals to suit additional agendas, and in this case I believe it is feminism.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 10:03 am
It’s clear what the problem is. There is simply too many bottle stores in Otahuhu. Close a few down, grab a quick photo op with community leaders – problem solved, move on.
Seriously though. This kind of heinous complete disrespect for another persons rights and the lack of basic human decency shown by this man would be an interesting case as a backdrop for ‘should we have the death penalty’.
Lock that man in a cell with 3 burly blokes who have young daughters on the outside. Justice will be done.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 10:16 am
If you have strong families this kind of stuff would be less prevalent. The root of the problem is that too many parents have relinquished their moral responsibility to raise their kids, and too many governments have assumed that it’s really their job in any case.
My view is that socialism hates any authority structures other than an all powerful state. So the ‘authority’ of families and churches must be marginalised or destroyed, and the police and judiciary must be controlled. Think we’ve seen quite lot of this in the last decade.
The increasing social chaos caused by all of this has had the citizens capitulating and demanding the government takes more action (eg ban this, legislate/control that… when what should be happening is individuals stepping up and taking personal responsibility for their own actions, for their own families and for their own path in life.
edit: burt, not sure about justice being done. revenge exacted perhaps, but not justice
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 10:17 am
As I understand it, and I am prepared to be corrected, the previous law made it an offence to be a prostitute but not to engage the services of one.
Perhaps the law in this regard needed to be amended in some way to reflect the inequalities of the situation but I feel the pendulum has swung in the wrong direction. I probably would have felt differently as a hormonally charged 18 year old, but my worldview has matured somewhat. Now that I have kids of my own, I know that what these 2 girls engaged in would not be suitable for a daughter of mine, and as a result, should not be suitable for any daughter.
This is a sad story on so many levels.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Goodgod, no I don’t see prostitution in those terms. I see it as a sordid and shabby transaction fuelled by base instincts that I find unfathomable. However, my point was that regardless of the character of the 12 year old, it is a criminal offence to shag one, whether consensually or not or whether money is involved or not. And I’ll thank you not to decide the direction of my moral compass.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I reject utterly and completely that this is a problem of our society.
Vote:Not my society mate, not now and and not ever, but feel free to keep wringing your hands over the state of South Auckland.
What we have is the inevitable result of nearly 40 years of social engineering to satisfy the wishes of a bunch of self loathing cardie wearing white onanists.
Paying people to not work, not contribute and add no value has caused this, then add the tsunami of immigration from the pacific islands and the deification of maori culture mixed with the fact that they are now imbued with a sense of injustice from the womb and this is what you get.
Frankly I don’t think electing national will repair any of the damage, it may slow down our inexorable and inevitable slide into the third world but that would be “at best”.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Nice Bill; you’re right it’s all down to the failed policies of Auntie Helen and the left, as are any shortcomings of any parents anywhere. Nothing like this could ever happen under a National Government.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 10:40 am
RRM, I said 40 years, clearly I was spraying shit at all of you.
Vote:We need a decade of pain to sort this out. Kiwis lack the courage to face this and that is why this country is doomed.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Fair enough, agree completely it’s not “Society” that is at fault let alone you or me. I just think it’s dubious whether it’s Social Welfare that’s behind low people and their low deeds either…
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 11:04 am
How would one socially engineer people into being good parents?
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 11:07 am
But but but, we’ve had three terms of a Labour government…..
Just goes to show, Labour are going to do sweet fuck all to fix any problems.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
But but but, we’ve had three terms of a Labour government…..
But but but, these girls grew up under a National government. This happened seven years ago.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Well Liabour have given an indication of their intentions which may impact on our Social direction. The homosexual Minister and the Lesbian head of the Education Department have indicated that scholarships will be availiable to homosexual children who are prepared to declare their homosexuality. A hidden Agenda somewhere methinks.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Don’t stand for it, Baxter! Those Homosexuals and lesbians want to take away your rights and belittle the sanctity of your marriage. So no doubt they’re behind the shocking case in South Auckland too…
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
RRM As I said IMHO the rot started under a Labour government and continued under National governments and Labour governments because those who should have stood up and spoken out were cowered by the left using labels to frighten them into submission
This is yet another example of political correctness where raising any counter position and seeking to debate is shut down by a toxic stream of abuse designed to humiliate and denigrate.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I fully agree that the root cause behind this whole thing is the destruction of the family. I would really like to know whether these girls had fathers at home or not. Sure the man in this incident is at greater fault, but what on earth could induce a couple of girls to think that pretending to be prostitutes was ok?
Since legalising prostitution, this will only get worse, not better. Sure it is still illegal at that age, but it is more acceptable. Just as lowering the drinking age to 18 makes alcohol more available to 16 year olds, if prostitution is legal at 18 (or 16???) it is seen as more acceptable by those younger than that age.
Most importantly, we need to strengthen families. A few good smacks back in the past could have prevented this entire affair. Re-criminalising prostitution will certainly help too. But neither major party has the guts to say it, as has been pointed out these girls grew up under National.
We need people in parliament with the guts to tell it like it is, and that is The Family Party. Most others at present are a bunch of wishy-washy left-liberals, from Dunne right through to Clark.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Perhaps we should re-criminalise prostitution? It is and always has been degrading and soul destroying for all those involved in it. Making it legal has just lowered the bar and so we can’t arrest prostitutes,only those under age. This government has a lot to answer for in my opinion.
Not to defend labour, but legallising prostitution doesnt make it legal for a 38yo man to fuck or rape a 12yo girl end of fucken story.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
“Nothing like this could happen under National…”
You’re right, as it stands it will only get worse, but not because National are not Labour, but because they’re scared to correct the social decay NZ has been saddled with. Too many social liberals in National.
Just imagine a Greens/National Coalition:
An ETS scheme increasing the costs of living and driving more people into “underclass” status.
A collection of greeny liberals in power – the same who were investigating lowering the age of consent to twelve.
and these are the twits who waffle about the underclass and “rape” of a twelve year old and how she’s too young and innocent? There’s a reason why it happens, plain cause and effect.
Hypocrites. Criminal hypocrites.
Can’t wait for the next instalment when our sympathy will again be sought for another member of the underclass who broke into a mongrel mob compound to steal weapons to sell and was caught and beaten senseless. Oh the humanity. Oh the breach of rights. Oh the limitless lack of responsibility and intelligence.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Goodgod said: I can only assume that the criminal intent of the girl was overlooked and she was assigned “innocent 12 year old status” on a moral basis by the same immoral liberal minds that made prostitution morally acceptable and legal and tried a man for engaging in that legal transaction.
Bear Hunter said: Goodgod, there can be NO legal transaction for sex between a man and a 12 year old, regardless of whether prostitution is legal or not.
Ryan Sproull said: But but but, these girls grew up under a National government. This happened seven years ago.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Mr Dennis
It’s entirely possible the girls thought it was OK to pretend to be prostitute because they have role models in their wider social group who do work as prostitutes. The reality is that as far as billable hours are concerned it is a high income profession. As a business/service it is not going to go away.
The tragedy here is that the girls who at 12 may know about sex, did not know the risks they were taking in dealing with men. The risks they were taking were not fully understood, this is not something we can blame a 12 year old girl for. I agree with you it’s a role models and mentors issue. IMHO generous welfare like WFF has a large responsibility in issues like this. It allows families to become isolated from their broader community as it gives them an artificial ability to be independent without the disciplines that would normally be developed in achieving independence by themselves. Economic out patients.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Well Portia, here’s the idiocy of the social liberal system:
Take people who live within a culture of violence, borderline poverty, substance abuse, immorality – tell them anything they do is fine if they feel it’s fine. Tell them they can’t succeed because they’re poor, brown, unemployed, a religious minority, homosexual etc. Tell them to sit tight and wait. Ignore them.
Forget that their world runs on very different cultural interactions than comfortable judges and lawyers (sickly white liberals). Forget that all the time you think they’re sitting tight waiting for you on a white horse, they’re creating and living their own culture, where our rules don’t apply, both moral and legal.
Then when they’re in court, forget what they are. Award them a social status they never held. Hope like hell that if you really believe they’re educated mature individuals, they will be. Award them an intelligence they don’t have. Forget to understand the case. Why do you need a context? Surely all you need is a liberal ideology. Rule on the case from a viewpoint of theoretical rights that correspond to a life they don’t lead.
What you get is a ruling, you don’t get justice. Forget the elements of the case and come up with various “It’s not OK” slogans that further your liberal ideology. Keep forgeting reality and continue with the slogans. Over and over. till you can’t remember the problem and are incapable of dechipering any future problem.
Then continue blabbing on about multiculturalism and further encouraging the cultural fragmentation of society. Wonder to yourself how things keep geting worse. Or sad. Wonder back to how at law school you discovered that justice cannot be applied unless all people live the same culture.
then look in the mirror to find who is to blame.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Most importantly, we need to strengthen families. A few good smacks back in the past could have prevented this entire affair. Re-criminalising prostitution will certainly help too. But neither major party has the guts to say it, as has been pointed out these girls grew up under National.
Neither of these things would help. And if the parents were the kind to raise a girl who gets it into her head to pretend to be a prostitute in order to rob someone, it’s doubtful physical violence against her would have been the “loving smack” of good parenting. Recriminalising adult prostitution would also be unlikely to help – the incident occurred after (and during) many years of illegal adult prostitution.
There has never been this mythical time when “families” were “strong” in a way that prevented people in lower socio-economic environments turning to crime – violent or otherwise. A number of people in this thread have said things that make clear they understand that people are an expression of their environment:
goodgod: “There’s a reason why it happens, plain cause and effect.”
Mr Dennis: “I fully agree that the root cause behind this whole thing is the destruction of the family.”
And so on.
If the “destruction of the family” is something that has happened in our country, and the “destruction of the family” is the cause of this effect, then crime would be uniform across socio-economic boundaries. It is not. The cause of crime, especially violent crime, is generational poverty. The most relevant “destruction of the family” is the fact that even in two-parent families, both parents have to work full-time to be able to pay the bills, leaving much less time than in more affluent sections of our society for the business of raising children.
And yet, when I suggest to some people that poverty causes crime, I am told that everyone has free will and is entirely responsible for their actions. Sometimes, more hilariously, I am told that my belief that “crime is caused by factors outside of the criminals” is one of the main causes of crime. I am given examples of people born into poverty working hard, not committing crime, and becoming good and proper members of our society. The suggestion is that because this tiny minority chose to be successful, the majority in those circumstances choose to be impoverished thug-rearers.
“Rich pricks” like John Key don’t cause crime. But the same system that makes it possible for Key to be worth $50 million makes it inevitable that a great number of families struggle on two incomes, leaving little time for parenting – which results in latchkey children who do poorly in school and seek family in the form of their peers – or, sometimes, gangs.
If we are to be serious about reducing crime, we should be serious about eliminating poverty. If that comes at the cost of people like John Key being worth $1 million instead of $50 million, and if that cost somehow galls us, then we should reconsider exactly how serious we are about crime in the first place.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I should add that it is not a majority whose kids turn to crime. Many families in shitty situations with low incomes do well for their kids, often with the help of their churches and other community groups. But the fact remains that crime rates and income are inversely proportional across our society.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Ryan: “The cause of crime, especially violent crime, is generational poverty.”
Absolutely not. Poverty can be a contributing factor for sure, with people stealing to eat. But it is rarely necessary to steal to eat with our welfare system, unless you’re blowing your benefit on drugs.
Correlation is NOT causation.
Most crime, not counting the odd desperate theft of a loaf of bread by a starving person, occurs when people believe it is acceptable. It comes back to morality and conscience. And you can be poor and moral, or rich and immoral. Morality is installed in the family. So ultimately, it comes back to the family, and whether someone was raised well or not and had a good example set for them by their parents.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Absolutely not. Poverty can be a contributing factor for sure, with people stealing to eat. But it is rarely necessary to steal to eat with our welfare system, unless you’re blowing your benefit on drugs.
Poverty causes crime in ways other than people stealing to eat. For example, as I said several times, the impact on a family of all parents having to work too much to be able to be a good parent, and all of the things that come from that – lack of education and interest in education, lack of adult role models, expanded influence of peers.
Correlation is NOT causation.
In this case, it is.
Most crime, not counting the odd desperate theft of a loaf of bread by a starving person, occurs when people believe it is acceptable. It comes back to morality and conscience. And you can be poor and moral, or rich and immoral. Morality is installed in the family. So ultimately, it comes back to the family, and whether someone was raised well or not and had a good example set for them by their parents.
So why the correlation? Just dumb luck that people in lower socio-economic areas have families that don’t instill morality in their kids?
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Ryan Sproull, one of the best things you can read on this subject, is “The Great Disruption”, by Francis Fukuyama
http://www.wesjones.com/fukuyama.htm
A strictly secular-philosophical assessment, none of that distasteful preachy stuff………
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Here is a VERY RELEVANT excerpt from Mr. Fukuyama for you, Ryan:
“……..SOME PROPOSED CAUSES OF THE DISRUPTION
CHANGES as great as these will defy attempts to provide simple explanations. However, the fact that many different social indicators moved across a wide group of industrialized countries at roughly the same time simplifies the analytical task somewhat by pointing us toward a more general level of explanation. When the same phenomena occur in a broad range of countries, we can rule out explanations specific to a single country, such as the effects of the Vietnam War or of Watergate. Several arguments have been put forward to explain why the phenomena we associate with the Great Disruption occurred. Here are three: They were brought on by increasing poverty and income inequality. They were products of the modem welfare state. They were the result of a broad cultural shift that included the decline of religion and the promotion of individualistic self-gratification over community obligation.
1) The Great Disruption was caused by poverty and inequality.
The idea that such large changes in social norms could be brought on by economic deprivation in countries that are wealthier than any others in human history might give one pause. Poor people in the United States have higher absolute standards of living than many Americans of past generations, and more per capita wealth than many people in contemporary Third World countries with more-intact family structures. Poverty rates, after coming down dramatically through the 1960s and rebounding slightly thereafter, have not increased in a way that would explain a huge increase in social disorder.
Those favoring the economic hypothesis argue, of course, that it is not absolute levels of poverty that are the source of the problem: modern societies, despite being richer overall, have become more unequal, or else have experienced economic turbulence and job loss that have led to social dysfunction. A casual glance at the comparative data on divorce and illegitimacy rates shows that this correlation cannot possibly be true in the case of family breakdown. If one looks across the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, there is no positive correlation between the level of welfare benefits aimed at increasing economic equality and stable families. Indeed, there is a weak positive correlation between high levels of welfare benefits and illegitimacy, tending to support the argument advanced by American conservatives that the welfare state is the cause of and not the cure for family breakdown. The highest rates of illegitimacy are found in Sweden and Denmark, egalitarian countries that cycle upwards of 50 percent of their gross domestic product through the state. The United States cycles less than 30 percent of GDP through the government and has higher levels of inequality, yet it has lower rates of illegitimacy. Japan and Korea, which have minimal welfare-state protections for poor people, also have two of the lowest rates of divorce and illegitimacy in the OECD.
The notion that poverty and inequality beget crime is a commonplace among politicians and voters in democratic societies who seek reasons for justifying welfare and poverty programs. But although there is plenty of evidence of a broad correlation between income inequality and crime, this hardly constitutes a plausible explanation for rapidly rising crime rates in the West. There was no depression in the period from the 1960s to the 1990s to explain the sudden rise in crime; in fact, the great American postwar crime wave began in a period of full employment and general prosperity. (Indeed, the Great Depression of the 1930s saw decreasing levels of violent crime in the United States.) Income inequality rose in the United States during the Great Disruption, but crime has also risen in Western developed countries that have remained more egalitarian than the United States. America’s greater economic inequality may to some degree explain why its crime rates are higher than, say, Sweden’s in any given year, but it does not explain why Swedish rates began to rise in the same period that America’s did. Income inequality, moreover, has continued to increase in the United States in the 1990s while crime rates have fallen; hence the correlation between inequality and crime becomes negative for this period……”
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
The idiots who spout that poverty causes crime should consider that if this were true then the Depression of the 1930s should have seen large scale slaughter and mayhem
it didnt
My parents were both children in the 1930s and crime was low
The reason Good ethics and morals Good christian values Good family values
All the things that are missing today
It aint ricket science and the so called experts should just shove off back under the rock they crawled from.
We have a legacy of poor and pityful leadership going back several decades
So called leaders without a spine to crawl up
All giving in to loud minorities Ignoring the majority Pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Look at the current lot JK and Rodders are the only leaders with a spine and good ethics and morals
The rest are a gutless bunch of try hards and wannabes.
The fraudster Clark is the worst A person with a confused personality not able to admit who she really is Playing out a charade for most of her sad and tragic life
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
gd
Agreed – integrity and honesty demonstrated by leaders in Business/Religion & Government whihc increasingly they have all failed to do play a part. Rodney has displayed these but I am not sure Key has the backbone to speak in the way Don Brash did at Orewa and make it acceptable to speak out and challenge the PC brigade and that is what is needed. Society is ready for a major change of direction as is being evidenced daily.
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Something is missing here.
Vote:There seems to be a lot of blamestorming.
Political Parties did this, did that. Society is at fault, parents are at fault. Law changes are at fault.
What a load of rubbish!
Everyone is responsible for their own actions, no matter if they are 3 or 83.
In this instant a 12 year old child tried to take advantage by pushing the envelope, so the responsibility lies with her.
In jail now for something else? Did not learn.
It is about time people stopped blaming someone else for their actions.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
The question is ….why aren’t twelve year old girls having sex?! They must be sad spinsters or kinky if they are that great age and not doing their bit for bonking.
For most of human history girls this age would have been expected to be married and bearing children….its only in this modern age that notions such as “adolesence” are given any credence……disgusting!
Oh for a return to traditional values of pregnant at 10 and married and bonded to a husband….
Vote:September 30th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
“sad” that a 36 year old man would want to pay for sex with a 12 year old
It’s not clear whether that happened. It could just be that she didn’t tell him that she was twelve until she had been caught and desperately trying to avoid sexual assault.
DPF, one correction: according to the NZ Herald, the kid wanted to rob the man after having sex, but changed her mind:
That’s not clear either. The Herald says they intended to rob the man after they agreed to have sex with the man, not that they intended to rob the man after having sex with him. See the difference? Changing their minds could refer to the intention of abandoning the plan to rob him once the car had stopped.
As I understand it, and I am prepared to be corrected, the previous law made it an offence to be a prostitute but not to engage the services of one.
The previous law made it an offense to for a woman to offer sex for money. It did not make it an offense for a man to offer money for sex and no crime was committed if the transaction was completed (unless of course the woman was underage, insane etc).
Vote:October 1st, 2008 at 12:13 am
So what is the point of Welfare again?
To finance the next generation of criminals, thanks, Hels and Sullen.
Vote: