Talk Elections

No. They are stupid and do not accomplish anything.

For example, the 16 and unders covered by Mankato's largely unenforced curfew never tipped a parked car, set it on fire, set up 4 other large bonfires in the general vacinity throwing anything they could get their hands on into it (including some bikes and destroyed parts of fences) and tossed empty beer bottles at cops and police cars requiring the SWAT Team from Minneapolis to be flown down and the National Guard to be called up to restore order. It was adults in Mankato that did that.

Bismarck had a curfew, but it was also mostly unenforced. Over 90% of the time when adults complained about kids being out late it was because they were at some Christian event actually.

I hate the fact that law-abiding citizens like myself can't stay out later.  If it were practical, I'd have licensing, but that'd be too much of a hassle, so for now, I'll live w/ it and say yes.

I've never been a fan of things like teen curfews or adult swim.  They could just create a section of the town designed (or possibly exclusively) for adults or desginate a section of the pool for 18/21+

THE TEENS WILL BE CORRUPTED! THEY'LL CORRUPT YOU!  OH NO! Lock your doors and windows!  Teenagers could be outz!!111!!!1

Oh wait they are almost entirely U.S. citizens with no criminal record and with no reasonable suspicion of them doing anything wrong?

Stupid curfews.

I despise curfews... Why should someone like myself who doesn't cause trouble be forced to go home by ten o'clock?

Those who break laws wont be stopped by curfews. Those who obey laws will be. Talk about dumb.

Teen curfews are stupid and unconstitutional as well.

By government or by parents?

For the former, no.  For the latter, yes.

On school nights, I'm all for it.  Kids should be home doing their homework and/or getting enough sleep for the next school day, barring any approved job which releases them by 10pm.

And what about the summer?

That's up to the local administrators.  To me, I say they can be out to 11pm if they are over 16.

17 year olds can only be out to 11? Fascist!

When I was 17 I was once out in Minot, ND until 2 AM (that was how long the show/"concert" I was at lasted), meaning I got home at around 4 AM. So were tons of other kids. No problems at all.

Coming from you, that's a compliment.  :)

No they are completely stupid.

This should be a parents job to deal with when there children should be home not the states. A horrible infringement upon the rights of citizens especially since this is a job that parents should be doing themselves.

Do these apply if the teen is with an adult?

Who are you to intrude, prude?

I think all states recognize 18-year olds as "adults," so once they reach that age, the curfew doesn't apply.

I don't know if this is true or not, but someone told me the age of majority in Ohio is 21, at least regarding moving out of one's home. I don't know how that could be, but that's what I was told.

Not if it's a parent or whatever. But I imagine 18 year old friends don't count.

Teens with parents tend to be emancipated in the minds of the state, as well as the federal government.

I don't support teen curfews.

Obviously not. Thank God that idea hasn't swept over here. (Under 18s need by law to be out of nightclubs by midnight though - not that that's enforced either, though they might not let you in after a quarter to midnight.)

Strongly oppose. It should be up to the parents.

Of course not

Terrible idea.

Kids can handle their homework without curfews.  It doesn't take that much time.  Also, if you really wanted kids to sleep well, move school to later in the day.  If you look at scientific studies, teen sleep hours naturally are pushed back in puberty.  They go to sleep and wake up later.  While little kids go to sleep earlier and wake up earlier.  The current school system directly contradicts fact.

Teens should be in control of their own lives and sleep schedule.

Neat!!! You've found an argument that can be used for teen curfews and gun laws!!!! ;D

On this, you are pretty much correct. I still dont see the need for people to have assault weapons, however, seeing as they shouldnt be assaulting anybody. How hard is it to get a collectors permit? (seriously, I dont know)

A collectors permit for assault weapons? In states where they're regulated, I'd imagine it's at least as hard to get as a regular gun permit. With the usual stuff like background checks, fingerprinting, and waiting periods. Like in North Carolina it takes something like a month to get a permit to buy handguns.

I'm indifferent overall, but I don't think they do any good. The government can't substitute for good parenting, and the police have more important things to worry about.

your teen?  none of my business.

my teen?  man, I wouldn't want my boy doing half the drugs I did.  wouldn't want him in trouble with the cops the way I was.  wouldn't want him touching some of the nasty skanks I did with a ten foot pole, let alone with his member.  when he gets to be around 14 he'll definitely have a curfew.

no curfews.  not really.  although from time to time we got lectured to about things like underage drinking and sneaking in at 4 in the morning.  my parents were what modern folks would call liberals, and I grew up thinking that Nixon and Reagan were dirty words.  Took me till well beyond the age of 30 to get over that brainwashing.  I swear to whatever gods there be I'll try my best not to make a bigot out of my child like that.  other than the lack of strictures and the philosophical bigotry, though, my parents were very decent and wholesome people, and I generally admire them.  Daddy designed offshore drilling rigs and as a result of his job we moved around the nation and around the world very often.  Mama was full-time, what with three children to raise.  she did a pretty good job of it, I think.  Anyway, she was big into the guilt mongering as a means of discipline.  it was probably more effective than curfews.  I'm still ashamed of masturbating in public, for example.  and that's not really a bad thing.  ask me to tell you the story some time when I was riding in the back of a female cop's cop car and we came upon a bum masturbating in broad daylight in the alley between massachusetts avenue and the charles river.  That was in Cambridge.  in about '97.  funny story.

well, officially tresspassing, though no conviction ever came out of it.  the real reason was that she hated me for breaking up with her little sister.  on a plane.  on the way to Logan from Phoenix.  at the beginning of the planeride.  like a dumbass.  that chick stalked me for a long time.  at my apartment door when I got home every day for about 3 months.  she'd take a cab sometimes to the subway station (porter square) and wait for me to exit from time to time.  bring me like one sock at a time, stuff like that, instead of putting my stuff in a dumpster or burning it like a normal person would have.  crazy bitch.

that was my last run in with any police anywhere, thankyouverymuch.  well, not counting tickets and little BS like that.  well, and not counting police in tijuana either.  or the yucatan.  anyway, it was the last time I was arrested in the USA.

anyway, we're heading downtown from near central square, actually closer to NECCO if you know where that is, and she got some call about a stolen car and wanted to swing by and check on it, and all the sudden she's like, "What the hell?!  hey you, hey man, you can't do that here.  get a room."  and the guy jumps up, pulls his skivvies back on and his pants and runs off toward that little parkland opposite the esplanade.   Now, mind you this was back when I was still a Democrat so my gut response is something like, "duh, get a room?  you insensitive bitch, he's a bum.  yeah, right, get a room.  he's a goddamned transient, how's he gonna get a room?"  that was a mistake.  She of course brought me in.  this was back in the day when that jackass, oh I forget his name, but the middlesex county DA who was chasing "The Nanny" who made national news when the baby died you remember that guy, and he's thinking of running for public office so he had a major hard-on for prosecuting everybody and their grandparents for even blowing his nose in the wrong direction.  anyway, I sat in a tank for a few hours, got to talk to the judge in the morning and pretty much explained to the magistrate that I'd just been taking a whiz in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the cop who happened by happened to know me from her sister, etc., etc., and this old guy got a big laugh out of it and let me off.  never found out what happened to the transient guy.

still, I'm lucky to be alive after some of the really stupid stuff I did, but these days I'm a boring old married guy.  and I don't want my son to suffer in any way.  Don't want him sending that little soldier into battle without a helmet, if you know what I mean.  there are so many STDs nowadays.  And I don't want him in with thugs, and really if you're buying anything illegal you pretty much have to deal with thugs.  really, it isn't worth it.  I don't want a total square like Clinton's daughter, but then I don't want an unruly spoiled kid like Bush's daughter either.  I'll cross whatever bridges there are when I get to them, but I'm pretty sure there'll be some curfews from time to time.  Not to sound like Stan Smith, but nowadays with cellphones and internet communications and global positioning and the like, there's really no reason for a parent not to know what his or her child is up to.

fair enough.  payphones certainly existed in the 80s and I didn't use them often enough in my own misspent youth.  And I do think backlash is possible, and in fact the animated series to which I alluded, American Dad, explores just that.  Think of the stereotypical "preacher's kid"  But children do need boundaries and guidance.  I feel pretty strongly that internalized values are solid and deeply held, whereas enforced values are shallow.  And for this reason I'm generally of the opinion that the best you can do is teach with sincerety and hope some of it takes.  And never lie when they ask you what you did when you were in that situation.  I don't think we're really in disagreement here.  I don't intend to be Stan Smith.  But I do intend to modify and regulate my son's behavior to some extent.  And I think using reason, rather than force, is the best way to do that.  Still, enforced curfews are a guarantor of at least eight hours of safety each day.  And knowing he's safe at least a third of the time will help me sleep better.  Call it selfish if you want. 

angus, just don't give him a midnight curfew on the night his girlfriend's parents are out of town and the two of them are at her house. Damn it!

That I'm a strong supporter of teen curfews of course.

Heh. Now then.

^^^

lol.  that must be frustrating.  while I didn't have curfews per se, I was subjected to being "grounded" from time to time.  Once my grounding corresponded to just such an occassion.  But mama, seriously, ground me for a month beginning tomorrow morning, just not tonight!!!  I considered groundings cruel and exceedingly harsh.  I tend to be hyperactive and willful and roam quite a bit, so grounding was the worst thing that could happen.  Some children are beaten, some starved, some ignored, and some grounded.  I'm not sure which is more cruel--I was never sent to bed without supper or anything like that--but I do think the perceived severity of punishment depends as much or more on the basic personality type of the child than anything else.  For an teenage boy there's pretty much one constant goal:  finding a warm, wet hole which permits entry.  Anything interfering with that noble goal probably constitutes a harsh punishment.  I will say I was more sympathetic to that sort of activity before I became a parent.  Not that I've become Mister Roper already, but I am at a point in life where I think there are more important things a young man ought to be doing with his time.

Yeah, I gave my mother far more grief than she deserved.  I regret that.  there were many times a telephone call from the principal would precipitatate a grounding.  For whatever reason, my teachers liked me.  For all the grief I caused them, I generally made good grades and liked school and enjoyed academics very much.  In the eleventh grade about three months into the school year my spanish teacher said I really had to stop coming to class thirty minutes late smelling like I'd had too much marijuana for breakfast.  She said she'd looked the other way long enough.  I had an algebra teacher finally call my mother after I'd cut her class almost every day for an entire semester.  Asked by my mother why she didn't report it before she said that when I was there I was polite, a quick learner, and always got the right answers when I bothered to come.  I'm not sure how I'd have ended up with today's rules.  Times have changed.  Society takes a much dimmer view about all sorts of things nowadays:  truancy, drugs, alcohol, and the like.  I'd have ended up in prison rather than having a PhD in chemical physics.  Maybe.  I am convinced children don't always respond best to draconian measures.  And I've never been a fan of "zero tolerance" policies and "three strikes" laws.  You don't turn criminals into citizens, for example, by locking them up with hardened criminals to be raped and taught how to be better criminals.  But I digress.  I never received a punishment I didn't deserve, and looking back I can see that my parents, the cops, and my teachers were probably more lenient with me than they might have been.  It all worked out okay, and nowadays I"m a respectable, taxpaying citizen.  A member of the Honors Curriculum committee at my university even.  I wouldn't think of driving drunk these days.  I don't even run red lights any more. 

"You know what I really want in a girl? Me."
(c) Bloodhound Gang

You can "thank" the baby boomer scum for the unwarranted fear/uptightness about minor thingsl ike that and all the other BS zero tolerance policy. Starting on January 1, 2010 those issues will slowly be going away along with the boomers.

Thank you.  I appreciate it that you feel that the government should make sure I have a good sleep pattern, and that I've finished my math work up.  Perhaps we could pass a law that demands that every citizen floss, because quite clearly that will result in dentist bills, which will force children on to the street, shanking nice suburbanites for their surgical bills.

Postscript: What about home-schoolers?  Or people who sleep during the day and are awake at night (for a variety of reasons, sometimes vampirical, sometimes medical)?  And, again, why the hell should I be able to be arrested for taking a walk after it's cooled down or if I can't sleep?

I think my town's is 11. I suppose it's enforced if you're doing something that looks shady and you're seen, but other than that, it's not. Not supportive of curfews at all though.

It depends, What color are said teens?  ;)   To allude to Alcon's white boy rant post, Yeah cops usually will just drive by a young man like Alcon.  The sad and true thing is that some black kid dressed in Fubu; or whatever the heck the fashion is these days, will not be accorded the same courtesy.  I know a lot of cops and policing is not color blind.   

For me it would be profoundly hypocritical to support a curfew.  I used to party on the beach all night long and unlike most of the teens on this board I was up to no good.  "Relatively" minor lawbreaking really: drink, weed, fights and noise violations.  I threw a multiple keg party on the beach one time that attracted near 500 hundred people.  The Nassau PD dispatched their helicopter and 30 police cruisers- I guess I wasted some tax payer dollars there...

I seem to recall Pat grow up in Rockaway?

Chewing out a rhythm on my bubble gum
The sun is out and I want some.
Its not hard, not far to reach
We can hitch a ride
To rockaway beach.
Up on the roof, out on the street
Down in the playground the hot concrete
Bus ride is too slow
They blast out the disco on the radio
Rock rock rockaway beach
Rock rock rockaway beach
We can hitch a ride
To rockaway beach
Its not hard, not far to reach
We can hitch a ride
To rockaway beach.

I thought it was two words- Lon Gisland.  Or is that just Brooklyn or something?

Yeah, I only lived in Rockaway when I was a little kid.  Thanks to Mayors Lindsay and Wagner most of Rockaway was turned into Fort Apache.  Whatver BRTD may argue living in a high crime area; even if it is right on the ocean, is not very fun.  At least half of the kids I went to school were kids of fellow Rockaway refugees.  I grew up in Long Beach- The City by the Sea but the more apt descripton would be Cirrohsis by the sea.   Long Beach is the barrier island directly southeast of the Rockaway Peninsula. My neighborhood was working class Irish year round residents and the population doubled with twenty something summer rentals.  I still have loads of family in "Rockaway"  and spent many weekends down there. 

And to Dazzleman- I prefer shanty Irish, thank you very much;)

 I don't really identify with Long Island very much.  Being a beach community and not car centric,  it is quite different from the rest of Nassau county.  Not to mention the guido factor was virtually non existent.


Honestly the only people around me who talk like that are most Jewish people and Italian women.

From Beach 5th to Beach 95th Street or so is pretty dicey.  For the past decade or so a lot of Orthodox/Hasids form the former Soviet Union have been buying up a lot of property The further west you go the nicer it gets.  Rockaway Beach is in the early 100's and there are  alot of civil servants- cops and firefighters etc.  They have been building these new houses in Rockaway in the middle of the ghetto and charging like 400-500k.  Time will tell if this can turn it around.  I for one wouldn't want to live in a nice house in crummy neighborhood. 

As I have told you, My mom actually grew up in the projects but they were eventually forced out because they made too much money.  My Aunts still lived at home and worked as nurses and this was factored in.  It is a recipe for disaster when you force hard working people out and let the dregs take over.

Sorry for taking the thread on a tangent.  I don't like curfews at all but Far Rockaway is a good example of why many people want them.  You drive through there late on a school night and you have 13 year olds slinging rock at 2 in the morning. 

Or why not ismply build big arcologies and make the poor live there away from normal society? Also put contraceptivesa in the food/water that goes into the arcology.

I'm noit talking about trying to improve their station I'm simply talking about keeping them away from everyone else and making sure they don't breed.

School, no doubt.  For the reasons you state. 

I think we discussed this before.  See, for example,

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=37239.msg838867#msg838867

I believe that the government should stop trying to dominate the lives of the youth and let the parents do their job.

Agree.

:)

probably not.


well anyway I'm still into imposing a curfew.  I don't care if anyone else does, frankly, and don't really think it the government's place.  But I'm definitely sold on the concept of a curfew for my son when he's older.

I just thought this thread needed bumping.

Not to surprise you or anything, but that is exactly the case in Singapore.

Teen curfews are yet another attempt by deadbeat parents to get the government to do their job for them.

No, I don't support them.

curfew isn't till 1 a.m. on weekends here.

I agree.  I support parents parents giving their kids curfews, but the government shouldn't be wasting their time keeping kids in their houses by a specific hour.

Rin-chan

It's an excellent idea. Teenagers should be locked up and slammed down.

Teens need to be forcefully hidden in a closet --totally support this..also it logically makes sense

Holy god are you insane?

I think that this is pretty obvious, but what evidence is there that the reduction in crime is worth making me walking past midnight illegal?  This pisses me off to no end, being someone who tries to abide laws as much as possible.  I should be able to leave my house innocently without committing a crime.

I said yes when this thread was started, but have no clue why.

As of now, absolutely not.

If teens are statistically more likely to cause crime in the small hours of the night, why is that a good reason to force all teens not to be out past some arbitrary time?

Blacks are statistically more likely to cause crime too.  Should we have a "black people curfew"?

police distractions from real crime, much in the same way enforcing marijuana and prositution laws wastes taxpayer dollars.

You make a mistake, dazzleman.  Most racist white people support racial profiling.

So, you would support a sundown law to keep blacks in their houses?

Maybe males, too?

I would not, and I don't particularly give a damn what other people would support, to be honest.  I couldn't face my friends and explain to them why being born an inconvenient skin colour would force them to stay inside after dark, no matter how decent they are and no matter what they do.

I would still appreciate an answer to my questions.

Please don't do that.  There's really nothing more annoying in a debate than, "you'll know better when you're older."  That's cheap.  My belonging to the target group is irrelevant to me.


Why not?  Men are much more likely to commit crimes than women.


Well, that's fine.  I understand why people support it, and so does everyone here, and I don't think an explanation of that is really necessary.  This is a debate over its validity, since I'm pretty sure everyone understands the emotions involved.

I have yet to see a single conclusive study that says not allowing anyone to leave their house at night because they aren't old enough, results in a lower crime rate.  Until I do, I'm going to err on the side of not having innocent people jailed for doing something that causes harm to no one simply because of statistics.


So would I.  Actions that do not infringe on the rights of the innocent.

Why?  Blacks are, if I recall correctly, something like four times more likely as whites to commit crimes.  If we're working on the basis of statistical likelihood, that's a rather strong one.

Err, I wasn't meaning to sound angry when I said "I don't give a damn."  I wasn't being huffy or emotional, I promise.  I was just saying that I don't give a damn.  In a Charlie Sheen kind of way, not a Martin Sheen one.  Imagine it with sunglasses.  It's all cool, I swear.


Err, what?  Do you understand how curfews work?  (Not meaning to sound bad here either - but I'm not sure what you're talking about, since curfews mean you break the law the moment you leave your home.)


I was actually suspected of being a dealer for a while.  :P  Long story, but I understand what you're saying.


I understand the thoughts and feelings behind that.  I would never attack someone for desiring safety.  I do not live in a safe city.  I understand the frustration of crime, and how awful it feels to wake up to find your car gone or a window broken.  I've had prize possessions stolen.

Which is exactly why I understand that, while the emotions are fine, the knee-jerk political reaction to crime isn't.  I would never attack anyone's desire for safety; I am just attacking the political positions.  I hope the two won't be confused, here.

But there is a legitimate basis to regulate behaviour on the basis of age?

They're four times more likely to get caught.

I really don't think I've done that.  I said I'd appreciate it if you do.  I'm not going to order you...and I'm really not trying to be any more disrespectful.  If I'm being disrespectful, I'm probably being playful, because I do respect you.  I also know you're a thick-skinned kind of guy, though.  Maybe I went too far.


I understand that, and have no reason to not want to accept that.  But being under lockdown in one's own house for a quarter of the day is a significant imposition.


Could you point out what exactly you found so "immature"?  I really don't see what lines would have offended you so much...I'm not meaning to be obstructionist.  I'm just confused.

That doesn't really bother me as much, because while being pulled over occasionally is certainly a pain, it isn't a denial of significant/base rights.

(You can see that I agree that it is a sliding scale, and not one of absolutes.)

Would you care to inform me how having darker skin automatically predisposes someone towards criminal behavior?

It is an obvious fact that criminals are disproportionately more likely to be black.  They are also even more disproportionately more likely to be male, as well as poor.

I am simply arguing that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.  My question still stands: what about dark skin color, exactly, predisposes someone towards criminal behavior?  If you think that by proposing this question I am denying an "obvious fact," I'm interested to know how.

I don't have so much of an objection to racial profiling - I've only been attesting to teen curfews.


Exactly.  :)


Again, I have no issue with looking for solutions...


Absolutely.  They use them to arrest people who are suspicious, but for whom they have no causation to arrest, or warrant.

Oh, God no.  I'm a very dispassionate debater...I don't get angry/huffy.  The first sentence (as I did say before...) was more of an offhand "I don't give a damn" than a Casablanca-style "I don't give a damn!". 

The "appreciate an answer to my questions" was just that - saying that I would appreciate an answer, in case you missed that part of the post.  I know that I've wrote long, rant-y posts only to realise later that I didn't answer the posed question.  :P

This is why I hate the Internet to death for discussions.  In the future, if I sound enraged...I'm probably not.  :)

Yeah...that's true.  I never debate political crap in real life.  I wish I was socially self-destructive enough to get away with it (:D), but I do miss the ability to use vocal tones/sarcasm in real life.  And not having to read over things before posting them.  But oh well.

Generally, marginalized groups in society develop different ways of tackling it. Some use education as a tool for reaching the top and overcoming the various obstacles they're facing. Others isolate themselves, nurturing a self-image of victimization and stubborn resistance to everything connected with mainstream society. Jews and Chinese are good examples of the former, Blacks and (in Sweden anyways) Somalians are good examples of the latter.

These are cultural generaliztions that do not say anything about a particular individual, of course. That is not the point. But in a political perspective it can be a problem. That there is a cultural issue is pretty obvious. It should be noted that it has rather little to do with the ORIGINS of the groups in question, but more with how they handle being a minority.

But the arguments in favor of teen curfews rely heavily on the fact that teens are statistically more likely to commit crimes.  My point was mainly just that I don't see how someone can support teen curfews while not supporting curfews for black people, as the principles are the same.  There just seems to be this sort of "okayness" for supporting things that affect all of teenagers that loses its "okayness" when the discrimination is generalized to something other than age-based discrimination, and I don't quite understand why.

I didn't say you were, which is why I said "someone" and not "you".


The difference is huge between restricting a 5-year-old from driving and restricting a teenager from going out at night.  There is an inherent inability of a 5-year-old to drive a car due to the size and mental capacity (or lack thereof) of the child.

On the other hand, however, there is nothing inherent in teenagers that makes them all violent.  I have a strong feeling that the correlation between being black and committing violent crimes is probably even higher than the correlation between being a teenager and committing violent crime.  Which brings me back to my question: why is it okay to restrict teenagers based on statistics while it is not okay to restrict black people based on statistics?  It's one thing if there's something inherent in someone's physical or mental capacity at that age that would not be the case in an adult, but that is not the case here.  People can be violent and commit crimes at any age.

The fact that minors have other rights restricted is not a justification to restrict all of their rights.


Which are... what?


Your entire argument seems to be "minors are restricted elsewhere, so it's justifiable to restrict them here as well."  I don't see how that makes any logical sense whatsoever.  Describing the current state of affairs does not form an argument regarding why something ought to be.  That would be like me saying, "I oppose the tax cut because the tax rate should be 10%.  I believe the tax rate should be 10% because it is currently 10%."

I'm apathetic towards teen curfews.  I can see the arguments for both sides, but I almost never have a reason to be out much past the curfew time anyway.  I don't really see why people get that worked up about it.  Aren't there more important things to worry about?

Okay, but we seem to be talking about two different things.  I'm talking about the logical justifiability of a policy.  You're talking about the political justifiability of a policy.  In an ideal world, the two would perfectly coincide, but this is not exactly an ideal world. :P

Gabu, while logic is admirable I think you would generally do well if you allowed some common sense in arguments. I think Dazzleman is assuming that he doesn't have to argue in favour of restrictions based on age, because almost everyone accept them. You can always question the logical basis of any opinion and gradually work your way towards some axiom which just "is" and can either be refuted or agreed with depending on your taste. Doing this in every argument is generally tiresome and doesn't necessarily contribute anything.

How am I not allowing common sense?  I laid out a clear argument regarding why I don't feel that precedent has any weight in this particular case and have received no counter-arguments other than "well, that's the way things are".  You can't refute an argument by just noting that the argument is only held by a minority and therefore act as if that justifies things.

So are you seriously suggesting that all age limits be abolished? The case you're making could be made for any age restriction.

I've already addressed this in an earlier post:


I have no problems with age restrictions if the person is being restricted based on some innate mental or physical limitation that is guaranteed to be present in someone of that age.  For example, no 5-year-old would be physically capable of driving, and the number of 10-year-olds mentally capable of understanding enough to be able to vote in an informed way is so small as to be insignificant.

No such thing is present in teenagers that links them to violence, however.  They are not all violent; they are simply statistically more likely to be violent than middle aged or elderly people - just as black people are statistically more likely to be violent than white people, which was my original point.

Ah, but you're escaping the problem here. Sure, no 5-year olds are capable of driving. But the driving age isn't 5, it's 18 (in most countries). And a ton of 17-year olds are fully capable of driving. The same goes for voting. ANd so on and so on.

There is never a guarantee of it being present. Either you draw a line or you don't, and if you do some people are bound to end up on the wrong side.

That could be interpreted just as easily as an argument in favor of lowered driving ages, but I digress.

The thing about driving, though, is that it's not really comparable to the issue of teen violence, anyway.  It's clear that during some time period, a person makes the transition from being physically and mentally unable to drive to being physically and mentally able to drive and that this transition occurs for every human being.  This is not at all true with the subject of teen violence.  There's no physical or mental limitation at all being taken into account under the restriction.  Everyone is capable at any age of both being violent and not being violent.  The restriction is entirely based on the fact that teenagers are simply statistically more likely to be violent than older people (and I could also note that the age group of 20-24 has actually a higher degree of violent crime associated with it than the age group of 10-19).

I'm confused now. Is your claim that there is no causation between youth and violence? I could add that everyone is capable at any age of both being able to vote/drive and not being able to vote/drive. Before you throw 5-year olds at me I hope you're not claiming that infants can be violent.

I think most of us has a sense that young people (in particular young men) are pretty aggressive. With most people this decreases with age. I mean, visit any schoolyard where a bunch of young boys aren't being supervised. Most games they come up with will basically be about fighting or testing each other physically. I think there are good reasons to assume that aggressivity is to an extent connected with youth.

Also, once you exclude "serious" criminals I believe young people tend to dominate crime statistics by a mile. So the link is not in any way weak and that it is causal is under-pinned by biology, I think (has to do with developing the ability to fight for the tribe, for food and whatnot. Kind of like how lion cubs will roll around fighting each other).

I'm in high school and, uh, no.  There is some fighting, but for the most part I see people playing bloody knuckles with quarters (dumb, but not violent).  I do not at all agree that anywhere near the majority of male teenagers are criminally aggressive.


And so do minorities and males in general.  No one is arguing against the points you are making - that most criminals are young males, and minorities - commit an unusual number of crimes.

The issue is whether the criminalisation of their being out at night is justifiable, considering that there has been no study that has scientifically proved that it really doesn't that much in reducing crime rates.  Do you not think it is fair that the law-abiding among us demand at least that before the right to be outside for a third to a quarter of the day is taken away from us?

No.  My claim is that there is no innate physical or mental limitation that makes all or all but an insignificant number of teenagers violent - and, as a result, that there is no justification to slap a curfew onto all teenagers when only a minority of teenagers (and it is a minority) actually engage in any sort of violent crime.

I looked it up and black people are seven times as likely as white people to commit violent crimes.  Hispanic people are three times as likely.  As such, there's a much stronger correlation between being non-white and committing violent crime than between being young and committing violent crime.  Why don't we apply a curfew on non-white people?  That would probably make crime rates go down as well, likely to a larger degree than teen curfews.

You've got points but consider that Gustaf is a euro nanny state transnational progressive so attempts to get him to consider solutions NOT involving the nanny state probably won't work too well

Gabu et al,

I don't believe that curfews are in place because of violence, necessarily, just criminal behavior in general.  And though perhaps it's true that teenagers have no natural inclination towards violence specifically, it is true that we are more likely to make irrational and/or unplanned actions.  This is because our frontal lobes (the part of the brain that plans and coordinates behavior) are less developed, meaning we are less likely to reason out our actions and will instead depend more on the more developed regions of our brain, such as emotional centers and the like.  Though not inherently criminal or violent, it's easy to see how doing such things could translate into criminal or violent behavior; whereas an adult might think about the consequences of his actions before, say, keying an enemy's car or getting involved in a nasty fight, teenagers will be more likely to live in the moment.

The Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/born-to-be-wild-its-all-in-the-brain/2006/12/21/1166290652342.html) had an article about this, the Boston Globe's article on a local seminar (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/11/10/parents_get_look_at_teens_brains/) has some more information, and of course Wikipedia is always your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobes).

I'm surprised no one else brought this up.

Either way, I still don't see how an increased statistical tendency towards either violence or criminal behavior in general justifies forcing them all to be in after a certain time.  I doubt even a majority of teenagers partake in criminal behavior.

You on the other hand got no points, but considering that you're a megalomaniac who tries desperately to be special by adopting ridiculous opinions on subjects you know little about, attempts to get you to consider thinking and such probably won't work too well, and I will hence refrain. Making up terms to slap on your opponents isn't really a strong debating technique though, in case you didn't know.

Anyway, there is, once again, links between being a young male and violence that is inherent biologically and pretty obvious. A lot of perfectly normal people get into fist-fights when they're young. YOu can pick almost any crime  and many youths will have either personal experience of it or know someone who has. This is not the case with older people. If a 40-year old says he got in a fight the other day, he's most likely a drug addict, in jail, etc. When it comes to blacks or Hispanics, one would have to isolate the race factor, removing things like poorer education, incomes, etc. I doubt the statistics would be as harsh. Also, crimes committed on the streets, which is what a curfew would aim at, is even more typical of youths.

Seeing as how I have a penis and am under 30 years old, I would greatly like to go outside and and commit various violent crimes. However, it is late!!! I will stay at home and bake cookies!

You're still arguing a point that's not the point that everyone else here is arguing about...

Of course, if you control for income, crimes go down!  But why should you control for income when creating such a law?  What practical relevance does that have?  We're not arguing that youths are more likely to commit crimes.  But what does controlling for income matter?  As an academic exercise, fine, but when it comes to making the law.  I do not see the practical relevance.  A curfew on black people would still be more effective, and by your logic, acceptable.

Now, now...I'm sensing a lot of hostility here, probably based on the assumption that I favour a curfew. I should perhaps clarify that I don't...I just think the arguments that you and Gabu are now advancing aren't very good. The relevant argument, IMO, is the one you suggested earlier, namely that the consequences for innocent people are too harsh while the benefit in crime reduction isn't significant enough.

And as of the matter at hand, the debate is getting kind of ridiculous. You are desperately trying to show that because a person favours special legislation based on age, that person should also favour special legislation based on race. That isn't a very convincing case to make, given that everyone holds the position that it is fair to legislate differently based on age, whereas few people believe that of race.

You may argue that crime is different from voting, driving, drinking, working, etc like Gabu has, but none of you have in my view given any conclusive arguments as to why it is different.

When it comes to you specific points here, this IS, first of all, an academic excercise. Let us go through what was said here. I said youths are more likely to commit crimes. You said blacks are too. I said that was probably not controlled for income. You then replied that this has no relevance for practical policy. I don't really follow why it isn't. If income is a stronger predictor than race, it would be better to restrict poor people than ethnic minorities. It is thus very much relevant. The whole point was that youths are probably the most predominant group, especially when it comes to street violence.

Oh, and in case someone brings it up, my first post on this topic was a) in jest and b) based on misunderstanding the topic. I hadn't read through the discussion and didn't realize what the issue was about exactly.

I'm really not being hostile just because I use explanation points, and if anything I said implied disrespect, it should not have.

I'm not going to get mad at anyone for disagreeing with me.  That would be really idiotic of me.


I understand that...but you can't control age any more than race, and crime statistics indicate that both race and age are related to an individual's likelihood to commit a crime.  In both cases, there are plenty of innocent people who would be affected.  In this case, what does make age a better basis?


I don't see why I need to defend differences from laws that I don't necessarily support in the first place...

To argue devil's advocate, do you consider voting and drinking to be rights analogous to leaving your house?


They aren't the most predominant group - minorities are.  We covered that earlier.  It's very hard to measure income for those who are arrested, unlike sex, age and ethnicity.

But my point is that there is a reason no one is suggesting keeping poorer people in.  They can vote.  And if you think that this wouldn't generate outrage from even middle-class adults, that's ridiculous.

Especially given that we're discussing a nanny state proposal that has never been seriously proposed in any European nanny state (although Sweden, like the US, has laws against drinking in public) but that does exist in parts of the oh-so-libertarian US.

Give me a break.

I wasn't offended, I just had the feeling that you and Gabu were considering me an anti-teenage monster. I felt a need to clear things up.


There is a theoretical argument which is credible. It makes sense that teens would be more likely to commit crimes which means that the causal inference is real in that case. Few people on the other hand belive that there is anything inherent in skin colour that increases the likelihood to commit a crime.


Well, voting is a pretty basic right. But, no, not really. THAT is what I would consider a good argument against teen curfews.

[/quote]

How sure are you of these statistics? First off, youths are more of a cross-section of society than an ethnic minority, as regards income, etc making a correlation there much more solid as proof of criminal tendencies. Secondly, we should not look at crime in general, but at street crimes in particular. I'm pretty certain that youths dominate these kind of crimes, but I don't know the American statistics on the matter.

As for your last point - of course. You sacrifice the rights of people unable to protest effectively, that's a basic rule in politics. I don't think it's the sole reason, but politically it would be very hard to justifie a curfew for voters.

Gustaf, please forgive me but I'm rather violently ill today.  I'm going to have to wait for a while to give you a cogent response.  Just posting this as a reminder to myself.

That is perfectly fine, of course. We've reached a stage where we're both mostly just repeating the same lines over and over again, so I'm not too upset. ;)

Thanks.  Nasty case of food poisoning.  The only good thing about it is that you feel perfectly fine the next morning.


Haha, all right - I don't consider you an "anti-teenage monster."  :)


Desperately?  :P  I didn't realize that my posts were any more "desperate" than those in any other debate.

Actually, what I was trying to do was to show that there are two things that someone cannot control (age and race) that both correlate with higher rates of violent crime, and that from a practical sense, race would be an even better way of preventing crime.


Why is that relevant?  Fine, in that case, keep the poor inside.  It's unenforcable, but as a theoretical.  Why not?  Why is no one suggesting that?  They can vote, among other things.


That and research indicates that they don't really do much for crime rates anyway, from what I've read.  :P


Minorities dominate all crime in any statistic I've seen.  If not street crime, what else would they be dominating...?  Street crimes consist of a high portion of crimes, and it's hard to imagine that minorities rank so much higher on forgery, or something.

We have very concrete statistics on these because arrest records list age, sex and race.

I guess I'll try again...many people I know have been involved in crimes, one way or another. A friend of mine was, for instance, arrested for using a fake ID, trying to get into a bar. Another of my friends know several girls who have been raped. I've met someone who would send around pictures of his penis via bluetooth in order to annoy people on buses. A guy in my class was in bandage for some time after having had a fight with a Nazi. Now, these people, who have been arrested, are likely to grow up and become lawyers, doctors or whatever. They're not specifically criminal, they're just young and commit crimes because of that reason. However, I don't know many 40-year olds who are involved in gang fights on the street, rapes, etc. And the reason is that a 40-year old who engages in criminal behaviour is not a normal person, but probably a criminal. I don't see how you can ignore this? If you take to lawyers, married with two children living in a high-income suburb, neither is going to party around town and smash a car. Skin colour doesn't really enter into it. But if you take a 19-year old kid, none of these statistics would matter. I would never be surprised to hear about a teen male being involved in some kind of criminal activity, regardless of other factors, because that is what you expect of young people.

Alright. I'm being lazy and don't want to read the whole discussion.

I agree with every word you say up there (except for the part "is not a normal person, but probably a criminal". Too black-and-white to be of much worth in a real life situation, not to mention that "criminals" are more or less normal people.) but how does it relate to teen curfews?

Well, that was obviously an exaggeration which I will not stand up for. :P

As for you question, it doesn't really. My point is that it is reasonable to support a teen curfew but not a black curfew, or whatever, because the groups are fundamentally different in this aspect. So this isn't really a question about teen curfews anymore, because we both oppose them. I just took issue with one of the arguments used against them, which I don't think holds up.

Fundamentally different in what aspect?  They grow up to no longer be that age?  And what difference does that make?  Maybe I'm being dense, but I still really don't get what you're trying to say.

It seems that your argument is irrelevant to race...you could just have a curfew for blacks under x age.  :P

Did you read my post earlier in this thread or is neuroscience not important to you? :P

I'm new to the debate and haven't read all 11 pages.. sorry.

I think teen curfews for teens under 16 is reasonable if it's say 11pm or something.  If the teens are accompanied by parents or someone over 21, then it wouldn't be so bad. 

I don't think I was ever walking around town at age 15 with other friends and causing trouble.

I don't see how more teens being inclined toward violence than adults is an answer to my question...  :P

I don't wanna read all the pages but I had a curfew - a parental imposed one.  The fact I am alive today means I followed it without exception.

Government as parent once again - OPPOSED.

Your parents would have killed you if you didn't obey it?

Ok, let me put it like this. In an ideal world, I don't think there would be any difference in crime rates between blacks and whites, because I don't think skin colour actually inclines you toward crimes. I don't know if you want to contest this, but I don't expect it. However, regardless of what we did with society there would still be higher crime rates for youths than for adults. That makes a difference.

I don't dispute that, which is why I'm not sure why you're bringing it up, and what it has to do with practicalities of teen curfews...

Since this isn't a perfect world, and everything.

We could quickly remove the gangsta subculture by shooting/interning/deporting a couple million people and putting in place repressive measures. Only a few million would  be potential resistance and the rest would just keep their heads down and mutter over coffee.

I never wanted to find out ;)  My dad is a tough ole Marine.

Change that to "not quite as immediately obviously unreasonable", and I'm ready to agree with you. It's not reasonable because it's not solving anything, and is unenforceable - something which the fact that your point is true simply doesn't affect.

Haha! My students are writing in class essays on teen curfews. Ninety percent of the essays are against.

Wait... 10% support it?!

How do you define reasonable? You're bringing in more practical reasoning here, and I'm not really an expert on criminology. I do think a teen curfew would lead to a signficant drop in the number of teens about in the street and that would in turn lead to a drop in crime level. It wouldn't be completely enforcable though, of course. The point would probably be that teen gangs roaming the streets could be taken care of even if they claim to be only "hanging around". But I meant reasonable more in an idelogical sense, i.e. it does not logically contradict itself or has to be based on racism, not in an empirical sense, as to whether it would lead to its goals.

Basically, a teen curfew would lower crime and thus improve the lives of a group of people (A). But it would severely lower the quality of life of another group of people (B). When B is based on age this is by most people considered to be morally acceptable, given that the improvement for A is big enough and the cost for B is small enough. We would however not, and this is my point, find this acceptable if B was a racial group. So, it is in a fundamental way morally acceptable to favour a teen curfew rather than a black curfew.

Now, a second point is whether, in the particular case of teen curfews, the improvment for A IS big enough and the cost for B IS small enough. You seem to think that the improvement for A is so small that it's hardly worthy of consideration. I'm not prepared to pick a side on that one, though I lean towards the improvement being bigger than you think. The cost for B is, however, too big to be demanded by a group, even if it is an age group. Therefore, teen curfews would be unacceptable to me. One could however have a more conservative view of children and education and find it too be acceptable. I wouldn't consider that to be completely unreasonable (but, yes, mostly so...).

I don't. The first part yes, probably, but there's not much reason to assume the second.

Just for one thing, there's lots of places to 'hang around' that aren't as it were on the streets. And the main victims of that kind of 'crime' are much the same people as the perpetrators anyways.
You *might* see a slight decrease in shoplifting, that's about it. :P

Ah, that is a good point. But I'm thinking of the whole "going home late at night and running into a teen gang"-sort of thing. Of course, that isn't as common as people think, but it does happen. There was a case in Sweden quite recently with a man who told some guy to not urinate against the wall. The guy and his friends knocked him down and jumped on his head till he died. Also, it isn't just about perpetrators it's also about paternalistically protecting those people. Drunk teens are very common victims of all sorts of crimes.

So you admit it's paternalism, and you still support it?
When did you become a nanny state liberal?

I've never had a crime happen to me as a drunk teen. I've had a leatherjacket stolen as a drunk young twen though, and had to walk home without it on a cold night. Thank God I was drunk. :)

There is no scientific proof that teen curfews actually do much of anything to the crime rate, so I don't see why you're making this presumption.

ha, dazzleman exposed his racism here.

Anyway, the "teens are more likely to commit some crimes" argument is simply flat out false. Like I said in my first post, it wasn't 16 year olds in my city who tipped cars and set up bonfires in the middle of the street just for kicks, it was adults, mostly ages 18-25, some even older. And I have noticed that the people causing trouble after dark are almost always my age, not high schoolers.

"Admit"? How could one possibly deny it? Anyway, I don't support it, as I have stated several times. Political debates aren't just about stating one's own opinions and shoving them down other people's throats, as far as I'm concerned.

Now, in order:

Lewis: Good for you. I've never had a crime happen to me either, but I know many who have been victims. And I'm fairly carefull when I'm out late at night.

Alcon: You mean to say that you never made an assumption that cannot be scientifically proven? In fact, had there been scentific proof it would, in my book, have ceased to be an assumption. I don't think there is anything odd with me making such assumptions. I have stated good rational arguments why it should be the case. I don't know that there is enough empirical data to warrant any sort of conclusion. But I don't trust empirical evidence without theory to back it up.

BRTD: You never cease to amaze. Will you NEVER understand that your own personal observations does not make things "flat out false". And noticing the last part of your post, yes, a curfew on you and people like you would probably do more to lower crime than almost any other sort of curfew, but that's another issue.

Let's take a look at Mankato's most wanted: http://www.ci.mankato.mn.us/safety/mostwanted.php3

None are minors.

Now let's look at the active warrants: http://www.ci.mankato.mn.us/documents/activewarrants.pdf

The vast majority are adults.

Where are the statistics that show teenagers commit more crimes?

Um...of course the most wanted criminals are going to be older, given that they've had more time to commit crimes. We're not talking about hard-core criminals, that kind of crime couldn't be stopped by a curfew (or any such measure) anyway. We're talking about more typical youth crimes.

And, of course, most older criminals started out as petty teen criminals. I guess, using your logic, we should scrap all education because no renowned scientists are students.

Look at the second list. That's not just of big criminals, it's every outstanding warrant. There are people on there for writing bad checks.

Teenagers don't write many bad checks either, for obvious reasons. And, once again, bad checks aren't really affected by curfews.

My point is the list doesn't include only big criminals.

most youth "crime" is caused by high drinking ages, illegality of soft drugs, ridiculous ageo f consent rules and general societal atittudes of attempting to put draconian controls on the young(PC/multicultrualism in euro and baby boomer attempts to torun us into the next greatest grenration). Remove those factors and it wouldn't be a problem

So you mean that the problem with rapes, drug addiction and alcoholism is that they are illegal? I'm sorry, but that is cold-hearted nonsense.

1 Can be handled by simply hanging them. No need for curfews
2 Again too bad so sad. Not my problem
3 See #2