Teen curfews

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Strongly oppose. It should be up to the parents.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

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 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.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

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.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

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.

Look, let's be realistic here.

Nobody likes to live in the midst of dysfunctional people who create all sorts of problems, including crime, violence, decay, etc.

Anybody who says they don't mind that is either an idiot, or lying.

I think that those who conceived massive, high-rise housing projects were not realistic about the underlying causes of poverty, and the terrible effect that it would have to concentrate so many people of this type in one place.  Liberals who did away with screening of tenants in many projects in the name of 'rights' also did a terrible disservice to decent people who are forced by economic circumstance to live in or near public housing.

I favor more scattered-site housing, with as much being as close to market-based as possible.  It will be difficult to accomplish this now, though, since public housing now has such a bad name that any neighborhood for which this type of housing is proposed will fight it tooth and nail.

But in order for there to be any chance for the poor to improve their position, they must be in some proximity to people who don't live in poverty so they have a chance to escape being totally mired in the thinking and mentality that leads to intergenerational poverty.  The trick is make the concentration light enough that the rest of the people living in the neighborhood don't flee, as they have so often in the past when this type of housing was introduced.

There is also an undeniable racial element here that will be very difficult to overcome.  That's a big part of why people have tolerated horrible public housing, much as they hate it.

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.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

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

Agree.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

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

Holy god are you insane?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

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.

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.

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).

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?

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

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

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.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Wait... 10% support it?!

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

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

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

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