| “I used to think I was poor. Then they told me I was not poor, I was needy. They then told me it was self-defeating to think of myself as needy, I was deprived. Then they told me underprivileged was overused. I was disadvantaged. I still do not have a dime but I have a great vocabulary.” Jules Feiffer,Javon Hargrave Steelers Jersey, American humorist.In yesterday’s editorial, we emphasised that in tackling the crime wave that has engulfed our nation, social programmes cannot be pursued at the expense,Martin Demichelis Manchester City Jersey UK, or in lieu,Cordrea Tankersley Jersey, of tough law enforcement policies. Specifically, we advocated that the only way to reduce our extraordinary level of violent crime is to target and incapacitate chronic violent offenders through a stringent policy of putting them behind bars. This does not mean,Alan Page Vikings Throwback Jersey, however, that we have to ignore the “root causes” of crime. The problem with the “social rehabilitation response”,Alexei Emelin Canadiens Jersey, however,Cheap Jerseys From China Online, is that there is little consensus in identifying those “root-causes” of crime.We have to be careful not to just pour money into social welfare programmes that are actually counterproductive to the war on crime.Take, for instance,http://www.airmaxfantasy.us.com/Nike-Air-Foamposite/, the influence of “poverty”. It has been touted that poverty is one of the major push factors that causes criminal behaviour. But the simple fact is that there are many neighbourhoods right here in Guyana that are in much more dire straits than some of our more crime-infested neighbourhoods and yet their crime rates are considerably lower.It is a fact also that poverty rates back in the colonial days were far higher than today. Nevertheless,Gilbert Perreault Sabres Throwback Jersey, the level of crime was significantly lower.Since 1992, the poverty rates in Guyana have decreased appreciably while the crime rates have skyrocketed. The answer to the question of whether “poverty’ causes crime has to be much more nuanced.Recently, to almost universal acclaim, the government has announced a massive programme to supplement the income of single-parent families. The rationale provided is that these families are invariably much poorer than the traditional nuclear, two-parent families.This is a pattern demonstrated in almost all societies. But while in Guyana we do not have the benefit of applicable studies, in the developed countries it has been conclusively demonstrated that there is a higher number of criminals coming out of these single parent families than in any other family structure.The question has been raised as to whether it is the poverty that is causing the youths from single parent families to turn to crime rather than the lack of suitable role models occasioned by the absent parent – almost invariably the father. We posit that the breakdown of the traditional family – even as an ideal – is a social and a moral catastrophe that is at the root of so many of the problems that beset out nation. One of the root causes of both crime and poverty is precisely this unravelling of the family.Yet the welfare policy of simply doling out money to single-parent families may send the perverse message that we are providing incentives that may contribute to the further breakdown of the traditional family by rewarding and promoting non-marriage and illegitimacy.Why is it that we do not have a tax rebate or aid for those traditional families that have children and are below the poverty threshold as is standard in most developed countries? We have to structure our programmes to reduce poverty in such a way that lead to the provision of greater nurturing environments with suitable role models for our youths.Strong families in the long run will be more effective than “big brother” doling out money in revitalising our crime-ridden communities. The best hope for genuine rebuilding of communities lies in sponsoring the rebirth of those traditional institutions that emanate from the communities themselves and are the best institutions for the moral nurturing of children – the family and the church and community groups.There was a time not long ago when our churches, mandirs, masjids,Tom Jackson Broncos Jersey, clubs and other associations were all the focal points for guiding the lives of our youths in positive directions.These institutions promote the nuclear family as the ideal and will go a far way in heading off crime in its literal infancy. |
