View Single Post
  #7  
Old November 24th 03, 01:51 AM
toto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Kids should work...

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:36:50 GMT, "Stephanie and Tim"
wrote:


"Ignoramus22857" wrote in message
...
In article , Doan

wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?


Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
fraction of the population.

In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
1950s, either.


I wonder what percentage of blacks are living at or below the crime rate
compared to whites? I wonder what the conviction rate of blacks is compared
to whites.

I assume you meant poverty line, not crime line above.

And as to the conviction rate, note that the research into the death
penalty in Illinois showed that 13 innocent men were on death row.
Most of them were black.

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.

i


Interestingly, if the crime rate is an indicator, it would seem to
indicate the ineffectiveness of punishments particularly spanking,
but other punishments as well. This may also explain why more
men commit crimes than women do also.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2075217/#ContinueArticle

racial differences are more pronounced for spanking than
for allowance denial: In both cases blacks punish the most,
then whites, then Hispanics, but the gaps between racial
groups are much bigger for corporal than for financial
punishment.

My note: Historically, this is a leftover from slavery when
black parents felt they had to be very harsh with their
children so the children would not be harmed by the
slavemasters. It was a way of teaching the children
how to get along in a society controlled by white people
who considered them to be less than human.

Boys are punished more than girls, with substantially more
spankings and a bit more in the way of allowance withdrawals.
Single mothers spank a little less, and withdraw allowances
quite a bit less, than other parents. Older and better-educated
parents are a bit less likely to spank and a bit more likely to
withdraw allowances. Bigger families spank less and
withdraw allowances more. But Weinberg's study finds
that the poor spank more even after you've accounted for
all of these effects. The question is why.

Here's one good alternative to the economic explanation:
University of New Hampshire sociologist Murray Straus
has published multiple studies concluding that children
who are spanked are less successful as adults. If the link
is causal—that is, if being spanked actually lowers your
earnings potential —and if spanking runs in families, then
we have an alternative explanation for Weinberg's numbers:
Low-income parents are more likely to spank their children
because low-income parents are more likely to have been
spanked themselves. Or maybe it's as simple as this:
Poverty breeds frustration, and frustrated parents lash
out at their kids. Does any reader have a better story?

My note: the child then learns that lashing out at someone
smaller and weaker is the way to deal with his frustration
and anger.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits