Teen curfews

[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.)

[Ebowed]

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

Why?  Blacks are, if I recall correctly, something like four times more likely as whites to commit crimes.  If we're working on the basis of statistical likelihood, that's a rather strong one.

They're four times more likely to get caught.

You're burying your head in the sand, Ebowed.

Would you care to inform me how having darker skin automatically predisposes someone towards criminal behavior?

[Ebowed]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Gabu]

Actually, it's more like ten times.

But under the constitution, there is no right to have different laws for people based on race.  That constitutional provision for equal laws is something I strongly support.

But the arguments in favor of teen curfews rely heavily on the fact that teens are statistically more likely to commit crimes.  My point was mainly just that I don't see how someone can support teen curfews while not supporting curfews for black people, as the principles are the same.  There just seems to be this sort of "okayness" for supporting things that affect all of teenagers that loses its "okayness" when the discrimination is generalized to something other than age-based discrimination, and I don't quite understand why.

[Gabu]

As I said earlier, I'm not necessarily a supporter of curfews.

I didn't say you were, which is why I said "someone" and not "you".

But there is a strong basis in the law for differentiating rights based upon age.  It makes some sense.  Minors don't have full responsibilities or full rights.  A minor can get arrested for not being in school during the day, technically.  And sometimes it happens.

Age can have some bearing on what types of activities people are prepared to engage in, and the level of freedom that they should have.  Ideally, the curfew issue should be handled by parents, but as we know, some parents are deadbeats, and the rest of society suffers as a result.

I think there is a real difference between limiting people's rights based on age, and based on gender.  You could argue that Asians are bad drivers, but would it be appropriate to pass a law not allowing them to drive?  Now replace that with a 5-year-old....of course, our laws already prohibit 5-year-olds from driving.  There is a big difference.

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?  It's one thing if there's something inherent in someone's physical or mental capacity at that age that would not be the case in an adult, but that is not the case here.  People can be violent and commit crimes at any age.

[Gabu]

Technically, it's not by statistics, but by (a) assumed level of maturity; and (b) lack of full rights by virtue of being a minor.

The fact that minors have other rights restricted is not a justification to restrict all of their rights.

In reality of course, statistics have something to do with it, but there are other reasons and justifications for restricting teenagers.

Which are... what?

Assumed level of maturity has a lot to do with restricting driving, voting, drinking, etc.  A 10-year-old is physically capable of voting, but not allowed to.  A 13-year-old is physically capable of driving, but not allowed to.  And certainly, the body of most 15-year-olds can handle alcohol, but they're not allowed to drink.

Your entire argument seems to be "minors are restricted elsewhere, so it's justifiable to restrict them here as well."  I don't see how that makes any logical sense whatsoever.  Describing the current state of affairs does not form an argument regarding why something ought to be.  That would be like me saying, "I oppose the tax cut because the tax rate should be 10%.  I believe the tax rate should be 10% because it is currently 10%."

[ilikeverin]

I'm apathetic towards teen curfews.  I can see the arguments for both sides, but I almost never have a reason to be out much past the curfew time anyway.  I don't really see why people get that worked up about it.  Aren't there more important things to worry about?

[Gabu]

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.

[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.

[Gabu]

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.

[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.

[Gabu]

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.

[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.

[Gabu]

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).

[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).

[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?

[Gabu]

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.

No.  My claim is that there is no innate physical or mental limitation that makes all or all but an insignificant number of teenagers violent - and, as a result, that there is no justification to slap a curfew onto all teenagers when only a minority of teenagers (and it is a minority) actually engage in any sort of violent crime.

I looked it up and black people are seven times as likely as white people to commit violent crimes.  Hispanic people are three times as likely.  As such, there's a much stronger correlation between being non-white and committing violent crime than between being young and committing violent crime.  Why don't we apply a curfew on non-white people?  That would probably make crime rates go down as well, likely to a larger degree than teen curfews.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

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

[ilikeverin]

Gabu et al,

I don't believe that curfews are in place because of violence, necessarily, just criminal behavior in general.  And though perhaps it's true that teenagers have no natural inclination towards violence specifically, it is true that we are more likely to make irrational and/or unplanned actions.  This is because our frontal lobes (the part of the brain that plans and coordinates behavior) are less developed, meaning we are less likely to reason out our actions and will instead depend more on the more developed regions of our brain, such as emotional centers and the like.  Though not inherently criminal or violent, it's easy to see how doing such things could translate into criminal or violent behavior; whereas an adult might think about the consequences of his actions before, say, keying an enemy's car or getting involved in a nasty fight, teenagers will be more likely to live in the moment.

The Sydney Morning Herald had an article about this, the Boston Globe's article on a local seminar has some more information, and of course Wikipedia is always your friend.

I'm surprised no one else brought this up.

[Gabu]

Gabu et al,

I don't believe that curfews are in place because of violence, necessarily, just criminal behavior in general.  And though perhaps it's true that teenagers have no natural inclination towards violence specifically, it is true that we are more likely to make irrational and/or unplanned actions.  This is because our frontal lobes (the part of the brain that plans and coordinates behavior) are less developed, meaning we are less likely to reason out our actions and will instead depend more on the more developed regions of our brain, such as emotional centers and the like.  Though not inherently criminal or violent, it's easy to see how doing such things could translate into criminal or violent behavior; whereas an adult might think about the consequences of his actions before, say, keying an enemy's car or getting involved in a nasty fight, teenagers will be more likely to live in the moment.

The Sydney Morning Herald had an article about this, the Boston Globe's article on a local seminar has some more information, and of course Wikipedia is always your friend.

I'm surprised no one else brought this up.

Either way, I still don't see how an increased statistical tendency towards either violence or criminal behavior in general justifies forcing them all to be in after a certain time.  I doubt even a majority of teenagers partake in criminal behavior.