pynchme, you are, as usual, unable to grasp basic statistics.
Firstly, many (most) minor criminal offences do not attract a prison term. For example, wilful damage; minor theft such as shoplifting; even quite serious theft if there is no aggravating circumstance; some forms of white collar crime, such as stealing as an employee; fraud, except for serious fraud; minor assaults, for a first offence at least; etc, etc, etc, do no normally attract jail sentences. They are all at very high rates among children of single parents.

See http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2008/1%20recorded%20crime.aspx for more data and do get someone to explain it to you, won't you?

Perhaps they might explain to you at the same time what constitutes abuse of a child, since you obviously have no idea on that subject either.

That report says that in 2007 (the latest figure) there were 282 homicides, 176,427 assaults, 19,781 sexual assaults, 17,988 violent robberies and 730 kidnappings, as well as 248,423 "unlawful entry with intent" (burglary), 70,650 motor vehicle thefts and 492,222 other thefts.

The same report shows that for every age group, male victims of assault outnumber female victims, despite the broadening of terms which has meant many more females complaining they were assaulted merely because they got into an argument. Male victims of robbery also outnumber female victims by a huge margin. 69% of unarmed robbery victims were male against just 26% who were female.

Frankly, you're nothing but a ninny who doesn't know her arse from her elbow, but knows that "all men are bastards".

As eyeinthesky said, the rising number of single-mother households has correlated quite well with crime rates. Whether there is causation is something that has not been studied.

As the ABS points out "Over the last two decades, one-parent families increased substantially as a proportion of all families with children under 15 years. In 1986–1988, one-parent families accounted for 14% of such families on average. The proportion increased to an average of 20% in 1996–1998, reached 23% in 2002–2004 and then fell slightly to 22% in 2004–2006." and

[cont]

The AIC report I referenced above shows in chapter 1, figures 3 and 4 that both violent and property crime rates have followed quite a strikingly similar curve.

So there is prima facie evidence to support your claim, eyeinthesky. Other statistics have already shown the protective effect of a biological father being close to the children, so it's interesting to see it confirmed from yet another angle.

pynchme:"I despise any child abuser regardless of sex."

But you wouldn't know a child abuser if she's female. You don't have the capacity to do so, because you're so fixed on the idea that women are only ever victims, never perpetrators of abuse. You're a fraud.

How do you reckon my 5 year old son felt when he had to watch through a security door while his Dad left his birthday present on the steps and went away without giving him a hug and a kiss for his birthday?

Yes, I am angry. I'll be angry about that for a very long time. The fact that you can't understand why makes you sociopathic as well as stupid.

Antiseptic

Do you treat the women in your life with the same dismissive contempt you use on the female posters on this forum?

I don't doubt Pynchme's sincerity regarding fair custody arrangements for children, that she puts children's needs first and that she is appalled by child abuse irrespective of whether the abuser is male or female.

You place yourself in judgement of all females here, can't take it when you in turn are judged - claiming Pynchme wouldn't recognise that a woman can be an abuser - what complete nonsense.

For all of your writing here - and you are very articulate, nothing appears in your posts about the well-being and best outcomes for children - generalisations like claiming all single mothers are bad is not in anyone's interest. Yet that is all you continue to do.

And you wonder why you are called anti-woman - when have you tried to discuss instead of deride?

Severin
I was about to contribute to this discussion but your last post has convinced me it is a waste of time discussing the reality,s of Family Law with people that refuse to be objective.
No wonder antiseptic et al reply so aggressively.
It is like a discussion about alcohol with an abstainer or drugs with a prohibitionist.
No discussion at all.
Fathers have been shafted by Family Law in this country and around the western world ,to the detriment of children, for far too long.
Generalisations are one thing but when out and out lies and screwing of data is used to justfy your position expect no favour or respect.
We all have barrows to push but one wonders what is achieved by shooting the people that point to the obvious flaws of the system.

Antiseptic, the figures that you've given are for the number of offences perpetrated by people of all ages and both sexes, rather than the number of offenders.

I provided a link to a book so that you could read the information there about all the factors that contribute to adolescent crime. I used numbers of people incarcerated because they have already been convicted (all other figures include allegations).

If one wants to look at number of offences, then one needs to also look at victim surveys and to consider the rate of offences per 100,000 of population over time. If you do that, you'll find that property crimes of all sorts, including B & E, have decreased (despite an increase in relative poverty), as have homicides, while assaults (all sorts) have increased in terms of police involvement (includes alleged as well as proven). HOWEVER, the victims surveys have maintained about the same level of reported victimization. This means that some proportion of the increase can be attributed to increased reporting.

Even so, there has been an overall reduction in crime during the past 20 years or so (well, graduating downward and stablized at the same rate for the past 7-8 years):

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2008/4%20selected%20offender%20profiles.aspx), though whether that trend will be maintained one can't tell.

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB39.pdf/$file/BB39.pdf

<"Since 1999–2000, offender rates of males in the 10- to 14-, 15- to 19-, and 20- to 24-year age groups have decreased by a quarter or more.">

Even if we pick one of the highest rates of any age group at around 8,000 per 100,000 of population of that age bracket - that is 8 in 100. How many of those 100 live in single parent households? If we consider all male offenders of all ages, the rate per 100,000 is more like 4 - not even that.

This is all presuming that eye's statement is accurate - no evidence has been presented that it is. Even IF 3/4 of criminals did come from single parent households, that doesn't mean that 3/4 of all single parent households produce a criminal.

styx - the flaws in the system are apparently in the eye of the beholder. We need to rely on whatever data is available to us and make the best assessment of the situation that we can. I can't help the data being what it is. Do you think I should lie about it to appease Antiseptic and whomever?