• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Youth curfews

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,831
Reaction score
422
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Many cities in america place curfews on teenagers (usually from 10PM or midnight to 5AM). For example, most cities in the greater Phoenix area requires anyone under 16 to be home from 10 pm to 5 am and 16-18 from midnight to 5:00 am. These regulations have led to the arrests of many innocent teens who weren't doing anything conspicuous.

This article was written 10 years ago but the situation hasn't changed:
Teens test limits of curfew - East Valley Tribune: News

While the curfew has decreased the amount of crimes committed by teenagers by 10%, that time period takes up 7 hours which is 29% of the day. The police could probably cut down crime even farther by cutting out any other 7 hour period. This anti teenage prejudice won't be changed by silence. That's why discrimination against blacks wasn't ended until the civil rights movement came along in the 60s.
 

MACS-24

OPO extraordinaire
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
1,322
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Many cities in america place curfews on teenagers (usually from 10PM or midnight to 5AM). For example, most cities in the greater Phoenix area requires anyone under 16 to be home from 10 pm to 5 am and 16-18 from midnight to 5:00 am. These regulations have led to the arrests of many innocent teens who weren't doing anything conspicuous.

This article was written 10 years ago but the situation hasn't changed:
Teens test limits of curfew - East Valley Tribune: News

While the curfew has decreased the amount of crimes committed by teenagers by 10%, that time period takes up 7 hours which is 29% of the day. The police could probably cut down crime even farther by cutting out any other 7 hour period. This anti teenage prejudice won't be changed by silence. That's why discrimination against blacks wasn't ended until the civil rights movement came along in the 60s.

"anti teenage prejudice"? eyeroll. The only legitimate reason for under eighteen to be out is for work. I take it you are under 18, no?
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Many cities in america place curfews on teenagers (usually from 10PM or midnight to 5AM). For example, most cities in the greater Phoenix area requires anyone under 16 to be home from 10 pm to 5 am and 16-18 from midnight to 5:00 am. These regulations have led to the arrests of many innocent teens who weren't doing anything conspicuous.

This article was written 10 years ago but the situation hasn't changed:
Teens test limits of curfew - East Valley Tribune: News

While the curfew has decreased the amount of crimes committed by teenagers by 10%, that time period takes up 7 hours which is 29% of the day. The police could probably cut down crime even farther by cutting out any other 7 hour period. This anti teenage prejudice won't be changed by silence. That's why discrimination against blacks wasn't ended until the civil rights movement came along in the 60s.

Are you a teenager? Those under 18 are juveniles, not adults. Adults have the right to do what they want, when they want, with the only limitation being that it also be legal, and that they accept the consequence or costs associated with their actions. Juveniles cannot legally accept such as responsibility, or be held completely responsible for most crimes they may commit - juvenile records and jail sentences being expunged once they turn 18. Very few crimes that are committed by juveniles end up with them being treated, prosecuted, and imprisoned as an adult.

Now, if you want juveniles to be treated, prosecuted, and imprisoned like an adult, then I would have no problem with allowing them to have complete freedom of movement. If they do the time? Then they can do the crime, or at least be given the freedom to make the choice. But, that's not going to happen.

Juveniles are just that, not adults. If we as adults restrict juveniles from being allowed to put themselves into situations where they may make bad choices that can negatively impact the rest of their lives, or end their lives, then we should do that. Curfews are just one tool to accomplish that.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
15,212
Reaction score
8,520
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Many cities in america place curfews on teenagers (usually from 10PM or midnight to 5AM). For example, most cities in the greater Phoenix area requires anyone under 16 to be home from 10 pm to 5 am and 16-18 from midnight to 5:00 am. These regulations have led to the arrests of many innocent teens who weren't doing anything conspicuous.

This article was written 10 years ago but the situation hasn't changed:
Teens test limits of curfew - East Valley Tribune: News

While the curfew has decreased the amount of crimes committed by teenagers by 10%, that time period takes up 7 hours which is 29% of the day. The police could probably cut down crime even farther by cutting out any other 7 hour period. This anti teenage prejudice won't be changed by silence. That's why discrimination against blacks wasn't ended until the civil rights movement came along in the 60s.

What **** hole liberal cities have you lived in?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
75,123
Reaction score
43,720
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Juveniles are not permitted many rights and privileges granted to adults and they are not held to the same standards for criminal acts which they commit. A majority see this as completely valid. You cannot have it both ways - if juveniles are granted the same rights and privileges as adults then they should be held equally legally responsible for their actions. If you want a 14 year old kid that gets mad and punches another 14 year old kid to have a lifelong assault and battery record then maybe we can consider letting them drink, smoke, drive, marry, vote, sign contracts and do their jail (or prison) time in a bunk next to Big Bubba.

I tend to agree that their should be one universal age (18) for defining rights and privileges as an adult but that too lacks majority appeal.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Many cities in america place curfews on teenagers (usually from 10PM or midnight to 5AM). For example, most cities in the greater Phoenix area requires anyone under 16 to be home from 10 pm to 5 am and 16-18 from midnight to 5:00 am. These regulations have led to the arrests of many innocent teens who weren't doing anything conspicuous.

This article was written 10 years ago but the situation hasn't changed:
Teens test limits of curfew - East Valley Tribune: News

While the curfew has decreased the amount of crimes committed by teenagers by 10%, that time period takes up 7 hours which is 29% of the day. The police could probably cut down crime even farther by cutting out any other 7 hour period. This anti teenage prejudice won't be changed by silence. That's why discrimination against blacks wasn't ended until the civil rights movement came along in the 60s.

They were not innocent, if they were breaking the law.

I was allowed to do, what may parents thought proper. But they were Ivy League. ;)
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
55,431
Reaction score
36,592
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Many cities in america place curfews on teenagers (usually from 10PM or midnight to 5AM). For example, most cities in the greater Phoenix area requires anyone under 16 to be home from 10 pm to 5 am and 16-18 from midnight to 5:00 am. These regulations have led to the arrests of many innocent teens who weren't doing anything conspicuous.

This article was written 10 years ago but the situation hasn't changed:
Teens test limits of curfew - East Valley Tribune: News

While the curfew has decreased the amount of crimes committed by teenagers by 10%, that time period takes up 7 hours which is 29% of the day. The police could probably cut down crime even farther by cutting out any other 7 hour period. This anti teenage prejudice won't be changed by silence. That's why discrimination against blacks wasn't ended until the civil rights movement came along in the 60s.

this is also an effort to compel parents to have control of their adolescent children
the parents are expected to know their child's whereabouts during the curfew period
not an inappropriate expectation
 

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,831
Reaction score
422
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Are you a teenager? Those under 18 are juveniles, not adults. Adults have the right to do what they want, when they want, with the only limitation being that it also be legal, and that they accept the consequence or costs associated with their actions. Juveniles cannot legally accept such as responsibility, or be held completely responsible for most crimes they may commit - juvenile records and jail sentences being expunged once they turn 18. Very few crimes that are committed by juveniles end up with them being treated, prosecuted, and imprisoned as an adult.

Now, if you want juveniles to be treated, prosecuted, and imprisoned like an adult, then I would have no problem with allowing them to have complete freedom of movement. If they do the time? Then they can do the crime, or at least be given the freedom to make the choice. But, that's not going to happen.

Juveniles are just that, not adults. If we as adults restrict juveniles from being allowed to put themselves into situations where they may make bad choices that can negatively impact the rest of their lives, or end their lives, then we should do that. Curfews are just one tool to accomplish that.

But it only reduces it by 10% while cutting out 29%. Assuming that making a youth curfew last all day would reduce it 100%, a good deal would be if it reduced a third or more The curfew basically encourages cops to harass people and check their IDs when they could be preventing someone from breaking into a store
 

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,831
Reaction score
422
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Juveniles are not permitted many rights and privileges granted to adults and they are not held to the same standards for criminal acts which they commit. A majority see this as completely valid. You cannot have it both ways - if juveniles are granted the same rights and privileges as adults then they should be held equally legally responsible for their actions. If you want a 14 year old kid that gets mad and punches another 14 year old kid to have a lifelong assault and battery record then maybe we can consider letting them drink, smoke, drive, marry, vote, sign contracts and do their jail (or prison) time in a bunk next to Big Bubba.

I tend to agree that their should be one universal age (18) for defining rights and privileges as an adult but that too lacks majority appeal.

I'm not saying they should be held the same responsibility as adults but that doesn't mean we have to treat them like they're 2nd class citizens. Here's my opinion:

buying a house: 18

gambling age: 18

drinking age: 18 (as low as 13 with parental consent but being drunk will still be 18)

marriage age: 18

death penalty: 18

driving age: 16

internet account: 13

no youth curfews
 

MACS-24

OPO extraordinaire
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
1,322
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
But it only reduces it by 10% while cutting out 29%. Assuming that making a youth curfew last all day would reduce it 100%, a good deal would be if it reduced a third or more The curfew basically encourages cops to harass people and check their IDs when they could be preventing someone from breaking into a store

Did you know that by "harassing" people during simple traffic stops, it is where many (and some cops claim most) crimes are stopped and/or past ones solved.

The maturity level sensed in these posts suggest that a curfew will serve you well.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Are you a teenager? Those under 18 are juveniles, not adults. Adults have the right to do what they want, when they want, with the only limitation being that it also be legal, and that they accept the consequence or costs associated with their actions. Juveniles cannot legally accept such as responsibility, or be held completely responsible for most crimes they may commit - juvenile records and jail sentences being expunged once they turn 18. Very few crimes that are committed by juveniles end up with them being treated, prosecuted, and imprisoned as an adult.

Now, if you want juveniles to be treated, prosecuted, and imprisoned like an adult, then I would have no problem with allowing them to have complete freedom of movement. If they do the time? Then they can do the crime, or at least be given the freedom to make the choice. But, that's not going to happen.

Juveniles are just that, not adults. If we as adults restrict juveniles from being allowed to put themselves into situations where they may make bad choices that can negatively impact the rest of their lives, or end their lives, then we should do that. Curfews are just one tool to accomplish that.

You can still assume that the individual is young and might not completely understand their decisions and still grant them full rights.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Did you know that by "harassing" people during simple traffic stops, it is where many (and some cops claim most) crimes are stopped and/or past ones solved.

The maturity level sensed in these posts suggest that a curfew will serve you well.

So what you're saying is the government needs ways to harass people to do their job. So with that in mind they need to be able to stop people for actions that don't involve harming anyone else because without such measures they wouldn't be as effective at their job. I'm not exactly sure you understand the depth of your argument and how it necessarily calls for the state to pass stupid laws.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I see no way anyone can argue that curfews don't violate the rights of those they are imposed on. If the individual has harmed no one and isn't expected to harm anyone then there is no valid reason to stop them from going where they please. Yes, I understand they are put in place to stop crimes, but that changes very little about the nature of the action. Stopping people from doing as they please when they are not even expected of doing anything is a violation of human rights. Period.
 

MACS-24

OPO extraordinaire
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
1,322
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So what you're saying is the government needs ways to harass people to do their job. So with that in mind they need to be able to stop people for actions that don't involve harming anyone else because without such measures they wouldn't be as effective at their job. I'm not exactly sure you understand the depth of your argument and how it necessarily calls for the state to pass stupid laws.
Way to read WAY to much into it. I'm saying his use of harass was poor and wrong.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Way to read WAY to much into it. I'm saying his use of harass was poor and wrong.

I'm hardly doing that. The US does in fact have many laws that largely exist to give police a way to harass people.
 

MACS-24

OPO extraordinaire
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
1,322
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I see no way anyone can argue that curfews don't violate the rights of those they are imposed on. If the individual has harmed no one and isn't expected to harm anyone then there is no valid reason to stop them from going where they please. Yes, I understand they are put in place to stop crimes, but that changes very little about the nature of the action. Stopping people from doing as they please when they are not even expected of doing anything is a violation of human rights. Period.
Wrong, it was argued already in post 4
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Wrong, it was argued already in post 4

That's not even a good argument. All he did was move the bar lower for children to get out of the argument. There is no valid reason the government should stopping innocent people from going where they please. It really makes no difference at all if the individual is a child or an adult as in both cases the citizen has done nothing wrong by just going out at a certain time.
 

MACS-24

OPO extraordinaire
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
1,322
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm hardly doing that. The US does in fact have many laws that largely exist to give police a way to harass people.
What the OP was talking about and what I was talking about both happened during probable cause. There is no law to harass but people are free to their opinion to see it as harassment.
 

MACS-24

OPO extraordinaire
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
1,322
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That's not even a good argument. All he did was move the bar lower for children to get out of the argument.

Now your moving the goal posts to a "good argument" ?
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What the OP was talking about and what I was talking about both happened during probable cause. There is no law to harass but people are free to their opinion to see it as harassment.

Traffic stops act largely as an outlet for the police to harass people. Hell, you even admitted it yourself. :shrug: Cop: "I see you have a black plastic bag in your car, sir." Is that bag any of the cops business? No. Would he have known about it without a traffic law that punishes people before any harm was done? No.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Now your moving the goal posts to a "good argument" ?

Arguing that you're not violating someones rights because they have less rights than everyone else is a remarkably bad argument that historically has been used to oppress certain groups.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Now your moving the goal posts to a "good argument" ?

Arguing that you're not violating someones rights because they have less rights than everyone else is a remarkably bad argument that historically has been used to oppress certain groups.
 

MACS-24

OPO extraordinaire
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
1,322
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Traffic stops act largely as an outlet for the police to harass people. Hell, you even admitted it yourself. :shrug: Cop: "I see you have a black plastic bag in your car, sir." Is that bag any of the cops business? No. Would he have known about it without a traffic law that punishes people before any harm was done? No.

You think I admitted it but you'd be wrong (one reason for the quotation marks used in my post.)
 
Top Bottom