CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should KIDS be arrested when found to be roaming around the neighborhood late at night?
In East St. Louis the mayor said that any child not accompanied by an adult after 10pm will be arrested...period. kids are shooting kids and he has decided to take back control of the neighborhood. But is right to arrest teenagers just for being outside?
Sure. Under 18 you don't have the same rights as adults, and for good reasons. If a town decides it's turning into Lord of the Flies, arrest those small-brained hormone driven bastards.
I'm for throwing every teenager in jail for a couple months, whether they committed a crime or not. Teenagers are the dumbest bunch of self-destructive terrorists on the planet.
I do not believe that we are debating the fact that you have written above. Rather, the crux of the debate is whether the fact is an agreeable one.
If a town decides it's turning into Lord of the Flies, arrest those small-brained hormone driven bastards.
The principle of Lord of the Flies is in fact that it is the nature of democratic societies to descend into disorder, due to the inherent savagery of men; not just those composed of children. Though I suppose your reference to be purely illustrative, I do suggest that you consider that allegory for a while. After that, you may be more hesitant to suggest that children in particular ought to be regarded as barbarous.
Of all the greatest crimes and injustices with which humanity has punished itself, those of adults have been and remain the most deadly and irrevocable. In the United Sates at least, adults commit the overwhelming majority of murders, and indeed of almost every other crime [1].
Should we not therefore arrest everybody who walks the streets at night?
I'm for throwing every teenager in jail for a couple months whether they committed a crime or not.
The greatest crime which a government can commit, is the persecution of its own guiltless citizenry under the façade of security. For in this act, is the death of justice, law and civilization itself.
Nor am I convinced that any society can possibly prosper by the wanton destruction of the principles whereunder it was founded.
Teenagers are the dumbest bunch of self-destructive terrorists on the planet.
And how better to educate them in the matters of justice, liberty and equality than by an unjust deprivation of liberty, exercised exclusively against persons under a particular age.
I applaud you, sir, for presenting what is possibly the most ill conceived and unintentionally ironic piece of legislation that I have been pleased to find ridiculous.
I know you're smart Enigmatic, you don't have to impress me with your ability to dissect literal translations of an argument in a manner that displays this.
However, I do have a perspective that has been entirely underestimated, as is your habit it seems to me where I am concerned at least.
I agree with this side for this reason:
1. My assumption is that the town passes laws in some sort of democratic process.
2. I assume that in order for children out at night to become a subject of debated law, with all of the presumed problems any town may have, means the problem is legitimate.
3. I assume also that it is still illegal to actually physically put a child in a real jail.
4. These assumptions lead me to the conclusion that this is a non-law made to discourage and not to fill cells with zits and pre-cum.
Are there a lot of assumptions there? Sure. But sometimes you need to assume some context in order to come to some rational decision.
Okay, so that is the basis of my argument.
From that basis I decided that this would be a boring and tedious way to lay the argument out.
Since this is an issue I do not particularly care about one way or another to any great degree,
I decided instead to play the role of crotchety old man for entertainment's sake.
You may not be a fan of my particular "crotchety old man" humor, but arguing against "Get off my lawn you damn kids" with an esoteric dissertation on the underlying meaning behind a bunch of kids worshiping a pig head,
I know you're smart Enigmatic, you don't have to impress me with your ability to dissect literal translations of an argument in a manner that displays this.
When you wish to furnish us with an account of your perspective, it is your responsibility to write an argument which accurately reflects it. If what you wrote did not reflect your opinion, then it is not my fault for misconstruing it.
However, I do have a perspective that has been entirely underestimated, as is your habit it seems to me where I am concerned at least.
If you had at any point written what this perspective was, I would not have underestimated it.
1. My assumption is that the town passes laws in some sort of democratic process.
As I have written, it is not the democratic prerogative of any one jurisdiction of the United States, to retract from any of its citizens, the rights to which they are constitutionally entitled.
I assume that in order for children out at night to become a subject of debated law, with all of the presumed problems any town may have, means the problem is legitimate.
The problem may be legitimate, but the means of correction are lazy and expedient, as well as unconstitutional.
I assume also that it is still illegal to actually physically put a child in a real jail.
The objections which I have raised to this legislation, are not based in the rejection of punitive measures, but in rightful indignation at the premise, that the criminal acts of the few are justification for the restriction of the rights of many.
How, do you think, police states are born if not by this means?
You may not be a fan of my particular "crotchety old man" humor, but arguing against "Get off my lawn you damn kids" with an esoteric dissertation on the underlying meaning behind a bunch of kids worshiping a pig head,
is not nearly as smart as you think it is.
I made no such dissertation. I merely found it inconsistent, that you should illustrate your vilification of adolescent persons as savages, by reference to a book whose principal message, is that chaos and violence is the natural state of all men.
As I have written, it is not the democratic prerogative of any one jurisdiction of the United States, to retract from any of its citizens, the rights to which they are constitutionally entitled.
Ah, therein lies the problem. Teenagers are not represented AT ALL in this democracy! Perhaps there should be a teenage revolution for representation?
And don't give me that 1/3 teenager bullshit, it's just a ploy to pad votes for the teenager owners, aka, parents.
Ah, therein lies the problem. Teenagers are not represented AT ALL in this democracy! Perhaps there should be a teenage revolution for representation?
If the age at which a citizen becomes eligible for the franchise is consistent across all states (and, by the 26th amendment, such a uniformity is assured), then there is no constitutional basis for such an action. Indeed, as revolution has as its direct object the destruction of a system or instance of a government, it cannot be the means whereby a group may gain representation in the same system, to which they were opposed.
A petition, series of essays or invectives, demonstration or any other peaceable act, might serve such a purpose, however.
And don't give me that 1/3 teenager bullshit, it's just a ploy to pad votes for the teenager owners, aka, parents.
I know not what this is. Has it been proposed, that citizens who are aged between 13 and 18 years, ought to be given one third of a common franchise?
1. Not true. A revolution does not necessarily need to overthrow the entire government, it may only implement something or take something away from it. Point taken though.
2. 3/5 I meant. Does that make more sense? If not link
I am thankful that the former was not in the latter.
But do you mean to say that what you last wrote was ironic, or that what follows is ironic?
Not true. A revolution does not necessarily need to overthrow the entire government, it may only implement something or take something away from it.
I am not certain that I can agree with you in this. No group can alter a government by a revolution, without replacing it. Otherwise, 'twere not a revolution, but a successful petition.
Now, some style the events in Quebec of the latter half of the twentieth century as "The Quiet Revolution", and that appellation may cause confusion. The usage is, in fact, tongue in cheek, as there was no revolution at all; merely reform.
The events may be distinguished from true revolution by historical reference. Consider the October Revolution, La Révolution Française, the American Revolutionary War and the Glorious Revolution. The latter was the first to be dubbed a revolution, and involved nothing less than the deposition of a king, and the accession of an entirely novel line. The others consisted at least of a seizure of power or change of sovereignty.
How, in the face of such historical forbears, can the successful petitioning of a government, or the successful intimidation of a government, be called a revolution, without demeaning the term? I submit that any attempt to do so, would be another blow in the novel barrage, prompted by modern tastes and sensibilities (or lack thereof), which impels people to cheapen every glorious or odious event of history, by comparison with the low and vulgar occurrences which afflict our present condition.
Surely, you must have remarked this phaenomenon?
3/5 I meant. Does that make more sense?
As for the slaves? No, I should think that true representation in a democratic government (and none here are ignorant of my loathing for the same), comprises nothing less than an equal vote. The question is not of the representation of a state, based upon the number of citizens within it, but of the undivided citizens themselves.
Do you believe that I believe that all kids should be thrown in jail?
We are no longer discussing that, sir. If it please you to read once more the argument which you last disputed, you shall discover this.
If you do not believe that I believe that...
The above is one of the worst attempts at a sentence that I have ever had occasion to read.
...then your entire line of argument is a waste of time and moronic.
Against the former charge, I renounce all defence. The latter is a puzzle to me. I suspect that "moronic" is a word which you have here conjured, solely for the purposes of avoiding any continuation of the argument.
Mine opponent has decided that the war is not worth continuing. I claim the field!
If you believe that I believe that...
Mine eyes... they bleed!
...you are a moron and a waste of time.
Mark, ye who are spectators to this dance. Mine opponent hath here rendered a jape, which doth masquerade as wit. In stead of the productive discharge of my time, I shall reveal to all and sundry, the root of the jape, and the canker which doth gall it from within.
I suppose that it was a feat which prompted you to some congratulation, to weave so masterful and deadly a trap as that whereby I was above so miserably ensnared. You began with a majestically contrived instance of Socratic irony, which surely would lure even the most guarded of opponents into a revelation of ignorance. "Do you believe this thing?" you asked, when the answer to the question was obvious! What Cicero is this, who has innovated so powerful a rhetorical device? By what litigious machinations, did you learn of this fiendish trick? Have you no pity for the poor, benighted souls whose destruction is assured by the dissemination of this tactic? What devilry is here wrought upon the fates of men, when such weapons as these are brought so lightly into the fray?
Then, not content with your foe's utter destruction, you unleashed upon him, the dreaded paradox. From this labyrinth, no Theseus has ever returned. One might go left, and die, or go right, and yet die. Truly, The Lord of the Flies is among us now, calling brimstone and ruin down upon the sphere of men; you, sir, are his instrument. For without satanic inspiration, I doubt very much that you might have contrived for me an end so desolate and miserable as this! I am by all means and avenues condemned to be a moron, and a moron who squanders his time and the times of others too, which is worse still! But mark as well, the ingenious phrases which mine opponent has assembled, to embellish my destruction. He has twice employed themes moronic and themes wasteful, imbuing his stupendous witticisms with an euphonic harmony, which, like the wrath of Nature's maelstroms, met and multiplied, will work the greater damage.
I am, sir, utterly undone.
The rains have passed; the clouds recede,
Which, brought about by malignancy
And all the weight of man's misdeed,
Collect, return, to bleeding sea.
I hope that the above will serve as a demonstration of irony, correctly applied and deployed to the ruination and humiliation of an opponent. You may in the future desire once again to strike at me by these means, but, I advise you, think well on't. It is not the business of the breeze, to contend with the tempest.
Meh, you're just jealous because I can make you look dumb in a couple sentences, while you need to write a dissertation when attempting to do the same to me. Pretty sure I won this one.
Meh, you're just jealous because I can make you look dumb in a couple sentences
No repudiation of this charge, could possibly convince you to the contrary. For myself, I am content in the knowledge that you applaud your most meagre attempts at irony with such approbation. You have certainly made somebody appear insensible by these few sentences; the matter of whom, I submit to the candid review of our peers.
while you need to write a dissertation
You have clearly never encountered any of my dissertations, if you mistake that for one of them.
attempting to do the same to me.
I do not feel inclined to make any attempt, to do to you, what you have already done to yourself.
Pretty sure I won this one.
The most perfunctory examination of the sentences wherefore you congratulate yourself, will show the incompetence of their author. Worse, as they address what was formerly the question, which had evolved; they are obsolete.
How am i being biased? its true, we all know its true, ive been there, youve been there.
Its not good, to get hammered like kids do these days at their age, their brains are still developing and all they think life is about is having sex and drinking and smoking weed.
Nothing wrong with smoking weed, but they smoke so much of it it is going to take a toll on their brains develpment, expecially mixed in with all other drugs they take.
no weed does have an effect on developing minds, anything that has a physiological effect will alter the course of your mind while its still young, and i said in large copius amounts mixed in with other stuff, not small doses
Since you asked, I shall elucidate in all of my subsequent passages, precisely how you are being biased.
its true, we all know its true, ive been there, youve been there.
As you have above professed an opinion for which you offer neither evidence nor reason, I suppose you to be biased against adolescent persons; for you seem to suppose that they are all criminals.
Its not good, to get hammered like kids do these days at their age
What do you mean, "these days"? At any rate, it is scientifically demonstrable that it is not objectively good to "get hammered" (which, for the benefit of my fellow pedants, I shall attempt to define as 'to become intoxicated by the consumption of narcotic or otherwise psychedelic chemicals", safely supposing that it does not involve hammers) in any case or at any age whatever. That you criticize inebriation in adolescents only, without and evidence at all, suggests that you are biased against them.
their brains are still developing and all they think life is about is having sex and drinking and smoking weed.
1. Occasional inebriation has not been demonstrated to affect the development of the brain to any significant degree.
2. The only objective purpose of life is to have sex, or by any other means to reproduce (a statement which I justify by the observation that every human instinct has evolved in such a way as increases the chances that an individual will survive to reproduce). In fact, the very nature of evolution itself demands that reproduction be an organism's primary instinct.
3. Are you criticizing behaviour, mentality, or both?
4. Marijuana has not been demonstrated to retard mental development either.
Nothing wrong with smoking weed, but they smoke so much of it it is going to take a toll on their brains develpment,
This statement contradicts itself and is scientifically inaccurate. Internal inconsistency and misrepresentation are both indicators of bias.
expecially mixed in with all other drugs they take.
This statement is based purely in conjecture. Slanderous conjecture indicates bias.
its not an opinion its a matter of fact, if a teen is out past 10pm the chances are very high they are looking to get in a different state of mind
These days as in thats all teens glorify anymore, how is it being biased? im going off personal experience, practically every teen likes to get messed up, and dont talk to me about "scientific evidence" about this issue, thats a load of bullshit, you dont need evidence, you need some common knowledge
Thats why i said large amounts, mixed with other stuff.
Have you not noticed teen pregnancy these days? Life is not objectively about having sex, its about reproducing.
Im criticizing both
In extreme large amounts it will affect you, anything with a physiological effect will
Its not contradictory, like i stated before, you didnt listen, in large amounts
Once again, its not bias, its personal experience and basic knowledge of what teenagers like to do for fun
Its not an opinion its a matter of fact, if a teen is out past 10pm the chances are very high they are looking to get in a different state of mind.
Facts are not facts because you declare them to be so.
These days as in thats all teens glorify anymore, how is it being biased?
Do you know what teenagers previously glorified? Military glory? Sexual conquest? Acquisition of wealth?
im going off personal experience, practically every teen likes to get messed up
You have personal experience with "every teen" on Earth, do you?
and dont talk to me about "scientific evidence" about this issue, that's a load of bullshit, you dont need evidence, you need some common knowledge
When proposing a new law, evidence is usually required, which suggests that the law is necessary and will be effective.
Now, where have you ever encountered somebody walking outside after 10pm, who admitted that they were going to smoke marijuana? I refer to marijuana because alcohol cannot legally be obtained by minors anyway, so in that case the law is redundant.
Do you have any evidence which suggests that the majority of teenagers acquire their drugs after 10pm?
Why do you target only teenagers, when marijuana is consumed by many other age groups, and is in fact most prevalent amongst young adults?
Have you not noticed teen pregnancy these days?
I submit that being inside after 10pm increases the likelihood of becoming pregnant.
Life is not objectively about having sex, its about reproducing.
Which we do, traditionally, by having sex.
Im criticizing both
Very well. Now, what do you blame for promoting this mentality?
In extreme large amounts it will affect you, anything with a physiological effect will
Do you have any experiecne which suggests that every teenager who walks outside after 10pm, not only takes drugs, but also takes extreme amounts?
Once again, its not bias, its personal experience and basic knowledge of what teenagers like to do for fun
Where did you acquire the basic knowledge. You see, I am eighteen, and therefore like to think that I possess a basic knowledge of what teenagers like to do. What source do you have that I do not?
Where did you acquire the basic knowledge. You see, I am eighteen, and therefore like to think that I possess a basic knowledge of what teenagers like to do. What source do you have that I do not?
Im 20, i didnt start doing drugs til about 18, and it wasnt even drugs, it was pot, but all my friends and everyone i knew, was looking to get trashed, and if it wasnt getting trashed, it was out causing mischief, and wreaking havoc.
Been there, done that, im over it.
And my stance is light on the "arrest on sight" all that should happen is get them brought back home
Im 20, i didnt start doing drugs til about 18, and it wasnt even drugs, it was pot, but all my friends and everyone i knew, was looking to get trashed, and if it wasnt getting trashed, it was out causing mischief, and wreaking havoc.
"Pot" is a drug.
So, allow me to parse your argument.
Your friends, who were aged between 13 and 20, enjoyed narcotics, inebriation and havoc.
Therefore, you infer that all persons who are aged between 13 and 20, must inevitably share the same passions. And therefore you propose, that these persons should be deprived of their liberties of assembly, dress and the use of public property, after the time of 10pm. In addition, you feel that such a law would effectively retard teenage pregnancy, and would actively restrict the trade of narcotics, as well as of the destruction of public property and, finally, murder?
Well, "allow me to retort".
Evidence
The evidence you mentioned, which is the only evidence you provide, is known as "anecdotal evidence". It is, by its nature, not sufficient to furnish an argument with the certainty, nor the credibility, which is required by formal institutions, including legislative bodies and formal debates [1].
Furthermore, it confuses the issue. The law in question was proposed to prevent murder and gang violence, which are not at all referenced in your anecdote. [2]
So you have not only produced dubious evidence, but have also produced evidence which is irrelevant to the debate at hand.
Conflict of justice and expedience
This law, which you so passionately endorse, is a law of expedience. It combats nothing, solves nothing and aids nothing, but suppresses the rights of the citizens of the United States, creates precedents which may be employed in the further subversion of the same rights and treats as criminals those persons who are of a certain age, thereby destroying the legal notion of equality, which was only by passionate and energetic activity of the citizenry, so lately obtained.
Illegality
The constitution of the United States, being the SUPREME LAW unto which the same nation is bound, expressly forbids the deprivation of its citizens in any state, of those same rights which their fellows in other states enjoy. As there does not exist a general curfew in the United States, there is a very patent conflict between this law and the said constitution. As aforesaid, the same constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the UNITED STATES, and therefore none of its judgements can be defied by any inferior law, unless an amendment is made to the constitution itself. As no amendment exists which can possibly admit this law, it must be considered an illegal restriction of liberty, and ought therefore to be opposed in every quarter and by every party.
Furthermore, a candid investigation will find this law to be in direct conflict with the third amendment of the same constitution, restricting as it does the freedom of a portion of the citizenry to peacefully assemble. [3]
Fallacy
The law itself, which persecutes all to punish few, is inefficacious and is founded upon principles which are not consistent with reasonable inquiry.
Those who have proposed this law suppose, that the obstruction of the breaking of one law by the creation of a second law, will prove sufficient deterrent to those persons who had otherwise been guilty of breaking the former law. Videlicet, that criminals are deterred by the notion of breaking the law.
I submit to the candid review of my peers, the notion that those who are susceptible of murder, are susceptible of breaking curfew.
Conclusion
This law is ill conceived, ill considered and ill advised. It does nothing to augment the security of the citizens which it oppresses, conflicts with the founding principles of the nation in which it is exercised and promotes the policies of persecution, inequality and expedience.
My final submission, is that to all the crimes which this law so ineptly seeks to prevent, the law itself is more heinous, grievous and criminal still.
Beating people up? I was a kid in the 80's, by causing trouble I mean throwing tp on people's houses and breaking off plastic forks in their lawn. You little bastards are the ones shooting eachother... and do you not realize my original comment was tongue and cheek?
Seems legit, except if stupidity was all that is required to land you in jail, we'd have more people living in jail than in residences.
And teens have the best excuse for their stupidity. Their brains are not fully formed and they are driven by hormones. Adults really don't have any excuse, yet they frequently act just as stupid. When i was in high school I got to witness lots of people literally stop maturing, stop growing intellectually and morally, and reach their personal pinnacle at 17. The world is largely populated with adults who have the mental capacity of a teenager, or, at least, that's all the mental power they choose to use.
And society might be better off with all these people (and teens) in jail, except if you put all the stupid people in the world in jail, there would be nobody left to run society.
This I can support. I've actually witnessed people hit their peak at 17/18, then not only stay in that mode, but get dumber.
I don't actually agree with putting them in jail. The point I was exaggerating is that, it seems to me, teens are not held responsible when they should be, "because their dumb"
or on that note and on the opposite end of the spectrum, parents/teachers go insane overboard with stuff like expulsion for plastic guns or mooning a teacher "ah their a terrorist!" "ah they're a sex offender" no idiot, they're a kid and did one silly thing.
So you have a bunch of teenagers throwing glass bottles in the street say, or hanging out in front of a store and annoying people until the store gets no business. Okay, kick them out. Make it a law until they get the point even since their parents can't seem to stop them. Use punishment fitting the "crime" but nothing permanent that's going to ruin their life.
The same kid doing that, won't see any consequences. But bring a squirt gun on the bus, expelled, can't get into college later, good chance now their going to some school to hang out with truly criminally inclined kids and end up growing up to be douchebag.
Obviously on the first part was my point, but since I was on the subject.
Not arrested but rather escorted back to their parent or legal guardian whom should have a good reason to let their child roam the streets at night or should be equally upset at the child for sneaking out. If the parent shows a pattern of neglect a social worker should be assigned but if the child shows a lack of respect the parent should consider asking for help with alternative disciplining for the child.
If it is presently illegal, in the jurisdiction in question, for the said adolescents (let us presume that they are adolescent) to be outside unaccompanied after 10pm, then they should indeed be arrested.
However, do not mistake this as an endorsement of such a law. For I am convinced that there exists no moral basis for any law which restrains the basic liberties of assembly and locomotion, of persons who have not been proven to be violating the liberties of others.
kids are shooting kids and he has decided to take back control of the neighborhood.
Then may I suggest that he detain all, and arrest only those who carry weaponry capable of shooting people?
This recently happened in Bangor, Wales and i was very much annoyed about it. What a lot of adults forget is that not every child is a criminal, it's just the media makes it appear that way. So it is prejudice to assume they all are.
To my previous argument, I wish now to amend the following excerpt from an argument in this same debate, which by laborious interfaces may be obscured to many.
Conflict of justice and expedience
This law, which is so passionately endorsed by its creators, is a law of expedience. It combats nothing, solves nothing and aids nothing, but suppresses the rights of the citizens of the United States, creates precedents which may be employed in the further subversion of the same rights and treats as criminals those persons who are of a certain age, thereby destroying the legal notion of equality, which was only by passionate and energetic activity of the citizenry, so lately obtained.
Illegality
The constitution of the United States, being the SUPREME LAW unto which the same nation is bound, expressly forbids the deprivation of its citizens in any state, of those same rights which their fellows in other states enjoy. As there does not exist a general curfew in the United States, there is between this law and the said constitution a patent conflict. As aforesaid, the same constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the UNITED STATES, and therefore none of its judgements can be defied by any inferior law, unless an amendment is made to the constitution itself. As no amendment exists which can possibly admit this law, it must be considered an illegal restriction of liberty, and ought therefore to be opposed in every quarter and by every party.
Furthermore, a candid investigation will find this law to be in direct conflict with the third amendment of the same constitution, restricting as it does the freedom of a portion of the citizenry to peacefully assemble. [1]
Fallacy
The law itself, which persecutes all to punish few, is inefficacious and is founded upon principles which are not consistent with reasonable inquiry.
Those who have proposed this law suppose, that the obstruction of the breaking of one law by the creation of a second law, will prove sufficient deterrent to those persons who had otherwise been guilty of breaking the former law. Videlicet, that criminals are deterred by the notion of breaking the law.
I submit to the candid review of my peers, the notion that those who are susceptible of murder, are susceptible of breaking curfew.
Conclusion
This law is ill conceived, ill considered and ill advised. It does nothing to augment the security of the citizens which it oppresses, conflicts with the founding principles of the nation in which it is exercised and promotes the policies of persecution, inequality and expedience.
My final submission, is that to all the crimes which this law so ineptly seeks to prevent, the law itself is more heinous, grievous and criminal still.
WHY ARE THEY GETTING LOCKED UP FOR THEY COULD BE DOING SOMETHING FOR A FAMILY MEMBER I THINK THE COPS SHOULD JUST TAKE THEM BACK HOME AS A WARNING TO BOTH THE CHILD AND THE PARENTS
Let's just be completely ourselves on this topic. As kids you know you wanted to hang out at night, during the day not much happened, at night seemed so much fun. If there is no illegal or negative activity going on, it shouldn't be a problem if kids wander at night (depending on their age). If they're of age they should at least be able to provide an excuse as to why they are out so late. No arrests should be made unless suspicious activity is going on.
Anybody could be roaming around the neighbourhood at night if they'd came back after a late party. After all do you want to be arrested if your'e that young? C'mon, think about it.
No! I don’t know where all of this crap about kids, not knowing how to conduct themselves after hours, comes from. Just because it's late at night, doesn’t always mean that they are up to no-good.
