CreateDebate


Debate Info

24
28
Yes, they need to be home No, the kids arent the problem
Debate Score:52
Arguments:21
Total Votes:65
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, they need to be home (11)
 
 No, the kids arent the problem (10)

Debate Creator

airwallkin30(5) pic



Should there be a curfew for people under 18 years to reduce crime?

Do you think that having a curfew for those under age of 18 would help keep the crimes commited down?

Yes, they need to be home

Side Score: 24
VS.

No, the kids arent the problem

Side Score: 28
4 points

A while back I was staying at friend's house who had curfew in his area for under 18's after one boy got murdered and another was in critical condition. Anybody under 18 without adult supervision would be escorted back home by police who were making rounds in the area. Without going into detail about my adventures and misdeeds I can say that the curfew does work. Although we could've easily run away and jumped a fence - the point is that police presence does have an affect on crime or potential crime.

In other parts of the world when something happens a curfew is placed on the whole populace and nobody is allowed out after certain hours.

It does have an effect. It's a great deterrent. However the problem is upholding it fulltime. I'd say having curfew's in areas where there's high crime rates. If it turns out to have a positive effect, we should continue with it, if however the crime gets pushed to areas without curfew, then we know that it will not be kept in place, because rich people are worth more than poor people and that's where the curfew is more likely to be kept.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, they need to be home
3 points

They need to be home

Teenage under 18 like boy make lots of damage to our society:-

1. They may damage any things like street lights and fire up the sign board in the road

2.They may murder or kill any one with a gang of Teenagers

3. They will take drugs that their parents wont know it

4.some could suicide them selves in a public bus and that may also cause injuries to many people in the public bus

SO I CONCLUDE BY SAYING THAT 18 YEARS MUST HAVE CURFEW AS WELL TO REDUCE CRIME

3 years ago | Side: Yes, they need to be home
2 points

ALSO THEY MUST BE GIVEN A LAW TO FOLLOW OR MUST BE UNDER A CONTROLLED MANNER (NOT TO GET ANGER ETC...)

THE FIRST REASON IS ANGER FOR A 18 YEAR KID

3 years ago | Side: Yes, they need to be home
Scumbarge(118) Disputed
4 points

YES THIS IS A BRILLIANT IDEA MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR 18 YEAR OLDS TO GET ANGRY

SOMEBODY GET THIS FELLOW A MEDAL

3 years ago | Side: No, the kids arent the problem
Akulakhan(2472) Disputed
4 points

Man, you need to watch that caps lock button.

3 years ago | Side: No, the kids arent the problem
2 points

yeh..i really think they need to curfewed because children under 18 need guidance. they dont need to go out until late night. what they need is solid rest so they become healthy. this proves how important curfews are because they prevent childran from doing crimes or witnessing it because if they go out at night they are bound to get involved in gang crimes or even worse see some gruesome crime....

3 years ago | Side: Yes, they need to be home
1 point

I think they do need a curfew, because; teens can get into major trouble causing problems in our community. They can also join into gangs and other very dangerous things, leading into sever consequences.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they need to be home
1 point

Heck ya get them little sh!ts out of the road walking around like their cool getting high and crap

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they need to be home

Yes there should. Many crimes are committed at night. A curfew helps protect the children. Besides, what would a child be doing out late at night? Some places in the US really do need a curfew because of the rates of crimes being committed. Kids might complain "they are taking away our rights" when they should think about the other children in other countries where they don't have rights to basic things. And what is the problem with staying at home by around 11:30.

2 years ago | Side: Yes, they need to be home
2 points

Firstly, it would be important to note that "The dominant position in criminology is that crime peaks in the late teens and early 20s, and declines thereafter"[1], so the effect of such a rule would be applicable, but no more so than another age group altogether.

Secondly, crime rates for juveniles based on the FBI National Incident-Based Reporting System state that rates peak at 3 pm, standard school closure time, and decline steadily thereafter.[2]

Finally, as we have witnessed in the past with the alcohol prohibition, and more currently marijuana prohibition, the more control a government has on it's populace, the less likely such a populace is to obey the government regulation. The more effort the government puts into control, the less likely they are to be successful. This is excessively self-evident in the teenage population, stereotypically being rebellious in nature. To expect that a government could enforce such a blight on personal freedom is ridiculous.

[1]http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/0/4/6/p200461_index.html

[2]http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/social/psych30/support_materials/time_of_day.htm

4 years ago | Side: No, the kids arent the problem
Ashen1997(3) Disputed
1 point

THERE ARE MANY CRIMES IN INDIA AND MANY DELHI IN INDIA

THEY ARE NO WAYS TO STOP INDA FOR TEEN CRIMES SO THEY MUST GO STAY AT HOME AS LAW

3 years ago | Side: Yes, they need to be home
Kinda(1638) Disputed
1 point

Finally, as we have witnessed in the past with the alcohol prohibition, and more currently marijuana prohibition, the more control a government has on it's populace, the less likely such a populace is to obey the government regulation.

This point is irrelevant to the question because of the completely different nature of the alcohol prohibition. There's money to be made out of that, a black market is created. This cannot be done by curfews on under 18's.

"The dominant position in criminology is that crime peaks in the late teens and early 20s, and declines thereafter"[1], so the effect of such a rule would be applicable, but no more so than another age group altogether.

You don't think that events in earlier parts of their lives is what leads to criminal lifestyles? You're not a law abiding citizen one day and a criminal once you're 18-19. It's over time with certain peers that leads to this, and hanging out late at night is the best time to get upto no good.

3 years ago | Side: Yes, they need to be home
casper3912(1553) Disputed
2 points

Black Market: Fake IDS.

The best time to break the law is in the middle of the day, or right after school.

People trust you then. :)

2 years ago | Side: No, the kids arent the problem
2 points

Ok. If you establish this hypothetical curfew, then it's just giving kids a chance to break one more rule. If they're out there and they get spotted, then chances are they could run into some mugger or whatever and that causes another crime.

4 years ago | Side: No, the kids arent the problem

Curfew is an ineffective means of control by government. The key responsibility fall burden onto the children and the parents. It is time to stop the government babysitting.

3 years ago | Side: No, the kids arent the problem
1 point

ummm hells no !!!! wtf trying to kill are fun !! most of us arnt even doing anything to do with crime! really 18 so when we all be come adults and have jobs no i dont hink so .....

2 years ago | Side: No, the kids arent the problem
1 point

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm.................................................................................... Hi Bitches :D Im New XP this is fun = w =

2 years ago | Side: No, the kids arent the problem


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.