Teen curfews

[Alcon]

On school nights, I'm all for it.  Kids should be home doing their homework and/or getting enough sleep for the next school day, barring any approved job which releases them by 10pm.

Thank you.  I appreciate it that you feel that the government should make sure I have a good sleep pattern, and that I've finished my math work up.  Perhaps we could pass a law that demands that every citizen floss, because quite clearly that will result in dentist bills, which will force children on to the street, shanking nice suburbanites for their surgical bills.

Postscript: What about home-schoolers?  Or people who sleep during the day and are awake at night (for a variety of reasons, sometimes vampirical, sometimes medical)?  And, again, why the hell should I be able to be arrested for taking a walk after it's cooled down or if I can't sleep?

[Alcon]

Teen curfews are yet another attempt by deadbeat parents to get the government to do their job for them.

No, I don't support them.

Actually, the type of parents you talk about don't care whether their kids are out or not.

Teen curfews are generally sought by people in troubled communities that are being plagued by teen crime/vandalism because of the deadbeat parents that you talk about.  They want the government to step in and protect them because the parents aren't doing the job.

I think that this is pretty obvious, but what evidence is there that the reduction in crime is worth making me walking past midnight illegal?  This pisses me off to no end, being someone who tries to abide laws as much as possible.  I should be able to leave my house innocently without committing a crime.

[Alcon]

The person who is saved from being a crime victim thinks it's worth it.  That's what it really comes down to.

It's the same issue with racial profiling.  Most white people implicitly support racial profiling because without it, they'd have to deal with a higher crime rate.  To them, it's worth it.  It's really just what side of the fence you're on, and I don't think there's a right or wrong position unless things are really taken to the extreme.

So, you would support a sundown law to keep blacks in their houses?

Maybe males, too?

[Alcon]

Oh, be realistic.  Most people won't admit to supporting it, but if their neighborhoood starts to suffer from crimes commited by blacks, they will sure as hell support it.

I think your statement is naive.  If racial profiling didn't have broad support, it wouldn't continue.

I would not, and I don't particularly give a damn what other people would support, to be honest.  I couldn't face my friends and explain to them why being born an inconvenient skin colour would force them to stay inside after dark, no matter how decent they are and no matter what they do.

I would still appreciate an answer to my questions.

[Alcon]

As I said, it shouldn't be taken to the extreme.

There is some legitimate basis to regulate certain behaviors on the basis of age, whether you want to admit that or not.  When you get older, you'll probably change your position.

Please don't do that.  There's really nothing more annoying in a debate than, "you'll know better when you're older."  That's cheap.  My belonging to the target group is irrelevant to me.

There really isn't a legitimate basis to regulate behavior on the basis of race or gender.

Why not?  Men are much more likely to commit crimes than women.

I haven't even said I support a teen curfew outright; I've just tried to explain the reasons why some people find it an attractive option.  I don't have a problem with the teenagers in my area, since the worst they generally do is drink on the golf course next to my house.  I'm a cool guy and don't complain about it as some people might, so long as they don't bother my property, which they never have.

Well, that's fine.  I understand why people support it, and so does everyone here, and I don't think an explanation of that is really necessary.  This is a debate over its validity, since I'm pretty sure everyone understands the emotions involved.

I have yet to see a single conclusive study that says not allowing anyone to leave their house at night because they aren't old enough, results in a lower crime rate.  Until I do, I'm going to err on the side of not having innocent people jailed for doing something that causes harm to no one simply because of statistics.

But if there were gangs of predatory teenagers around me, I'd support taking action against them.

So would I.  Actions that do not infringe on the rights of the innocent.

[Alcon]

Get down off your high horse.  You're now acting like a teenager.  I've presented my views respectfully, and was in the middle of typing a response to your questions when you made your huffy little statment.

Err, I wasn't meaning to sound angry when I said "I don't give a damn."  I wasn't being huffy or emotional, I promise.  I was just saying that I don't give a damn.  In a Charlie Sheen kind of way, not a Martin Sheen one.  Imagine it with sunglasses.  It's all cool, I swear.

Profiling doesn't force people to stay inside.  It simply increases the risk that they will be the subject of police scrutiny.  Technically, if they're doing nothing illegal, they need not fear it, though I recognize the inconvenience and aggravation that it causes.

Err, what?  Do you understand how curfews work?  (Not meaning to sound bad here either - but I'm not sure what you're talking about, since curfews mean you break the law the moment you leave your home.)

But profiling works both ways.  If I go into certain neighborhoods, it will be assumed that I'm there to buy drugs.

I was actually suspected of being a dealer for a while.    Long story, but I understand what you're saying.

I'm just being practical here, and trying to point out that there is a downside to all this high-minded talk against curfews and profiling.

I understand the thoughts and feelings behind that.  I would never attack someone for desiring safety.  I do not live in a safe city.  I understand the frustration of crime, and how awful it feels to wake up to find your car gone or a window broken.  I've had prize possessions stolen.

Which is exactly why I understand that, while the emotions are fine, the knee-jerk political reaction to crime isn't.  I would never attack anyone's desire for safety; I am just attacking the political positions.  I hope the two won't be confused, here.

[Alcon]

Alcon, as I said earlier, I have approached this topic respectfully, and if you can't respond accordingly, I see no reason for it to continue.  I don't appreciate being ordered to answer questions from you.  I'm under no obligation to say anything beyond what I want to say.

I really don't think I've done that.  I said I'd appreciate it if you do.  I'm not going to order you...and I'm really not trying to be any more disrespectful.  If I'm being disrespectful, I'm probably being playful, because I do respect you.  I also know you're a thick-skinned kind of guy, though.  Maybe I went too far.

It is often impossible, in the real world, to protect the innocent without infringing on the rights of certain other innocents, in at least a minor way.  An absolutist position often hurts a lot more innocent people than a more pragmatic one.  That's just the unpalatable reality.  Sorry if you don't like that, or don't want to accept it, but my pointing it out doesn't mean that I created the situation.

I understand that, and have no reason to not want to accept that.  But being under lockdown in one's own house for a quarter of the day is a significant imposition.

And I wouldn't have brought up the age thing if you weren't acting so immaturely.

Could you point out what exactly you found so "immature"?  I really don't see what lines would have offended you so much...I'm not meaning to be obstructionist.  I'm just confused.

[Alcon]

That doesn't really bother me as much, because while being pulled over occasionally is certainly a pain, it isn't a denial of significant/base rights.

(You can see that I agree that it is a sliding scale, and not one of absolutes.)

[Alcon]

That's mostly what racial profiling involves -- being pulled over more frequently.

I don't have so much of an objection to racial profiling - I've only been attesting to teen curfews.

Curfews are different in that they are a prohibition on something.  Racial profiling may mean that you're more likely to be pulled over in a certain neighborhood, but it doesn't prohibit you from going there.

Exactly. 

As I said, I'm not myself a supporter of curfews in my present circumstances, but I can see why some people would be.  When people continually are victimized, they start looking for solutions, even if they're not perfect.

Again, I have no issue with looking for solutions...

There's also a racial angle to the curfew thing.  Curfews are far more likely to be enacted in black areas, I would suspect, though they're not explicitly racially motivated.

Absolutely.  They use them to arrest people who are suspicious, but for whom they have no causation to arrest, or warrant.

[Alcon]

It seemed a little huffy when you made your "I don't give a damn..." statement, and then said "I would appreciate an answer to my questions.."

It didn't seem playful to me, but whatever.  No worries.  I understand that certain issues are emotional ones.  I'm not terribly offended; I was just a little put out by your answer, and the fact that you didn't even give me time to respond.

Oh, God no.  I'm a very dispassionate debater...I don't get angry/huffy.  The first sentence (as I did say before...) was more of an offhand "I don't give a damn" than a Casablanca-style "I don't give a damn!". 

The "appreciate an answer to my questions" was just that - saying that I would appreciate an answer, in case you missed that part of the post.  I know that I've wrote long, rant-y posts only to realise later that I didn't answer the posed question. 

This is why I hate the Internet to death for discussions.  In the future, if I sound enraged...I'm probably not. 

[Alcon]

Yeah...that's true.  I never debate political crap in real life.  I wish I was socially self-destructive enough to get away with it (), but I do miss the ability to use vocal tones/sarcasm in real life.  And not having to read over things before posting them.  But oh well.

[Alcon]

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?

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

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?

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?

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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. 

[Alcon]

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.

Did you read my post earlier in this thread or is neuroscience not important to you?

I don't see how more teens being inclined toward violence than adults is an answer to my question... 

[Alcon]

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.

I don't dispute that, which is why I'm not sure why you're bringing it up, and what it has to do with practicalities of teen curfews...

Since this isn't a perfect world, and everything.

[Alcon]

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.

There is no scientific proof that teen curfews actually do much of anything to the crime rate, so I don't see why you're making this presumption.