Should there be a curfew for people under 18 years to reduce crime? [ENDS 28/02/10]

A curfew won't solve things out, the children will still go out and will still cause trouble, possibly more trouble (they could rebel). And the children that don't go out, they'll stay indoors getting drunk and smoking. A curfew could even be seen as against human rights. What about if a child does loads of after school activities, gets home at 7pm and can only go out for an hour? It's taking away a childs life.

While I was initially opposed to the idea, after looking into Singapore's curfew on youths after 11pm I think it's quite practical. And remember we sort of have one anyway, most if not all pubs kick youths out after 9pm.

Quote:

---

The Singapore Police recently announced that the police may report teens under 17 years old to their parents if they are found loitering in public places after 11pm. Police will send parents letters stating when and where their children were spotted as well as the contact number of the nearest police post which parents can call for more information.

---

Technically it's not a curfew as there's no punishment for the child or the parent, it's pretty much voluntary. It's for the childs safety as well as for everyones else bare in mind.

Some sort of system like the Singaporian system sounds practical, more here; http://thewormiepage.blogspot.com/20...en-curfew.html

I'm pretty sure anything like this done on a voluntary basis will completely fail in this country.

Just kill everyone under 18.

Nah but I don't think a curfew would work at all - it would be expensive to set up, expensive to run and expensive to enforce the punishments, unless they were so tame no-one would care anyway. This country is too obsessed with human rights for anything like this to ever work.

No because that would be ageist, that's like saying should we stop children from eating sweets because it rots there teeth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tash.

Oh gosh, not again. If you are seriously saying that we put every single youth or person who commits a crime into prison then you're more naive than I thought. Where exactly do you propose we put them? Prisons are overcrowded as it is, the government has had to make other arrangements for the people who have committed crimes that are considered to be lesser (such as ASBO's etc). Clearly they don't work but at least they tried. I know what you're response to this will be, but i'll wait anyway before I counter it.

---

Where did I say lets put every youth in prison who commits a crime? - its a tad bit obvious to me and the majority of people, put the persistent offenders away who are the cause of the problem. What would you and the Labour Party prefer, that we 'connect with our youth' - what a load of old tripe lets be honest with ourselves which doesnt work at all along with ASBOS and the rest of it; some of these kids are problem kids and need a hard long spell in prison to set them straight. The parents need to stop being blamed and the kids take responsibility for themselves, if you commit a crime you do the time and its as simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tash.

The prisons are already overcrowded though, there is no space to put every teenager who commits a crime in prison.. Even less so is there space to put in prison every parent of a kid who commits a crime. Not only that but would you propose putting both parents in prison or just the 1? Because really that opens up a whole other can of worms about where you put the children while their parents are in jail. Further to this, how is it fair on the parents if they have 1 child who is causing untold problems when their other children are well behaved and do not get into trouble with the law? Because believe me that happens.

---

..and the simple solution that you are missing and that this government is missing is; BUILD MORE PRISONS.

There are some young people who are out till god knows when but for the majority of us we are hardly out to them silly hours of the night. Sometimes I like to go out for a drive or w.e or if I need something Ill nip to the supermarket but if there is a curfew then I wouldnt be able to do that. So for the minority would be ruining it for the majority, yet again. I say no keep it like it is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

No we do not live in a police state and it is wrong to punish the majority, the reason why crime is out of control is because if one simple reason; they get away with it. If you bang those up who commit crime for real and proper sentences then perhaps we'd get somewhere but sadly this government has done the opposite and catered to the criminal, rather than the law-abiding citzen.

I am sick of it and the whole country is sick of it, but the government continues trampling on.

---

Agree completely. Pretty much answered it for me.

it might cut crime, but it's a stupid idea.

It would be completely wrong and out of order to punish everyone.

It would also be impossible to enforce

I feel this should be the last solution. There needs to be other action taken as to how they get possesion of alcohol and knives etc. However, I myself know this has been debated and that they would still find a way to get these things. This sounds however, like a very dictatorial measure, and as some have mentioned will make the majority suffer, over the wrong doings of a minority.

I think the solution is harsher punishments for all those who are causing trouble. The government needs to send a clear message to everyone doing so. For sure, using such rash measures is not the solution.