Teen curfews

[Gustaf]

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

[Gustaf]

Ebowed, stop being deliberately obtuse.  We all know the statistics.  As to why that is, there are a myriad of reasons, but somehow I don't think you're really looking for an answer to that.

You're looking for me to deny an obvious fact, and that's not something I am willing to do.  Problems don't get solved by denying obvious facts.

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.

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.

[Gustaf]

I'll give it one more try.

The concept of restricting rights based upon age has precedent that is still accepted.

The concept of restricting rights based on race or gender has precedent, but that is no longer accepted.

If you want to argue that restrictions based on age shouldn't be accepted, that's a different issue, but you'd have an uphill battle there.  The trend has actually been moving in the opposite direction.

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.

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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:

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?

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.

[Gustaf]

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).

[Gustaf]

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

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

But are you seriously refuting restrictions such as the voting age or the drinking age? Not the particular ages today of course, but the notion of having it at all?

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

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.

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.

[/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]

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.

[Gustaf]

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

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.

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

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.

Desperately?    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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

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.

[Gustaf]

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. 

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

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.

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.

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...).

[Gustaf]

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.

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

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?

"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.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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.