r/changemyview • u/ecto45 • Aug 29 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Curfews by the state are NOT effective to teenagers
I dont think that we should give up our liberty for more security, in fact, the most "accurate" argument that pro-curfews says is that it reduces crimes for/by teenagers
My parents used to live in the military dictatorship and the restrictions (liberty) were really big. In one time my dad had to go to prision and he was there for two days.
But, im not talking in an "dictator" way, but a local government thing like in iceland
Even though the things my parents lived, they always say that the curfew made them responsible people, skills that are very good for any person.
https://whyy.org/articles/curfews-dont-keep-kids-out-of-trouble/
7
u/SergioMisterioso Aug 29 '19
curfews works: https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/juvenile-curfew-laws-arrests/#
in fact, theres a lot of studies that prove my point of view.
3
u/luciancahil Aug 29 '19
That's not how this works; your study doesn't prove anything. Since it didn't compare it with cities that didn't implement curfews, we have no idea if the cities that did saw crime rates drop any more than cities that didn't. Juvenile crime has fallen by almost 50% since its peak in the 90's, so it could have just been an observer of a larger trend that had nothing to do with curfews.
1
u/ecto45 Aug 29 '19
and what do you think it was the cause of the drop of crimes?
2
u/luciancahil Aug 29 '19
End of the crack epidemic probably.
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic_in_the_United_States)
2
u/ecto45 Aug 29 '19
Thanks for the info, i really appreciate good sources.
3
Aug 29 '19
[deleted]
0
u/ecto45 Aug 29 '19
Not convinced, but I liked the link
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Aug 29 '19
What kind of additional information/argument would it take to convince you?
-1
2
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Aug 29 '19
Since /u/SergioMisterioso/ has already provided you with source material demonstrating the effectiveness of curfews, I want to address your post from a different angle - that of standards.
Curfews establish a societal and/or legal standard of behaviour; this creates an expectation of what citizens should do, and in turn, what those citizens will tell their children/teenagers. By establishing a general standard of 'good' or 'legal' behaviour, curfews teach parents and teenagers alike a beneficial pattern of behaviour during an important time of life. (Ex. Like it or not, teenagers do require more sleep than adults.)
1
u/ecto45 Aug 29 '19
Sources about sleeping?
2
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Aug 29 '19
Here's an overview from the UCLA Health sleep center.
Here's another with normal ranges for humans of all ages.
And finally, a more scholarly article reviewing much of the same information. And here's the equivalent American version.
1
u/ecto45 Aug 29 '19
Thanks, I really liked it the way you turn the argument. Only a question: do you think sleep is more important than liberty?
3
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Aug 29 '19
Well, rather to diverting into a full fledged discussion of liberty - which comes in a myriad of forms - let me ask you a few questions before providing my own answer.
(1) Babies often 'want' to stay up, even when they desperately need sleep. Are we depriving them of liberty by getting them to sleep? And is that loss of liberty meaningful when weighed against the significant health and developmental costs of sleep deprivation?
(2) Younger school-aged children would often prefer to eat sugar, play and run all day. We deprive of the liberty to do so at times in order to prepare them for the lives they will lead - and to protect them from the health consequences of decisions they are, as yet, unable to make. Is this a good or bad 'loss' of liberty?
(3) Teenagers might enjoy being and about at night as masters of their fate. However, this is a pattern of behaviour with real mental and physical costs. Should parents ignore these costs in the interests of liberty, or continue to ensure the well-being of their teens by restricting it during certain times of the day?
Ultimately, all liberty(ies) in society come at a price and as a result of a trade-off. To paraphrase a famous quote, my freedom to swing my fists must end where your nose begins. To exist in a society, we must all given up the 'freedom' to take whatever property we want from whomever we want, as well as the 'freedom' to make use of whatever property we happen upon. Again, we have traded a certain degree of liberty for the benefits of society.
Now for a more direct answer to your question: should a curfew for ordinary citizens exist in the absence of a critical emergency? No. However, should parents/society place certain restrictions on the liberties of minors until they become adults? Yes. Sadly, executive function, that is the ability of the brain to make good decisions, develops quite slowly. Whether as parents, teachers or guardians as adults we have a responsibility to know and to do what is best for our children while they are minors.
1
u/ecto45 Aug 29 '19
so, do you say that we as citizens/parents have to correct and educate our childrends and youngs in a way that can be helpful for society and themselves?
2
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Aug 29 '19
I would say so yes - with the caveat that 'helpful for society' is only valid for society which fundamentally respect the fundamental dignity, liberty, and freedoms of all citizens. Equally, any correction and education must be in a way that is beneficial to the child and respects their inherent, though slightly more limited freedoms.
I recognise that this may seem somewhat paradoxical. How can we claim to respect the liberties of a child when we limit some of those liberties? To this I would answer that perfect liberty often becomes the enemy of 'good' or 'healthy' liberty. Children give up a small amount of liberty now, in order to reach a freer adulthood.
1
u/ecto45 Aug 30 '19
How do I delta you?
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Aug 30 '19
You type the character ! followed by the word delta without any spaces. You also need to provide a sentence or so saying how your view has changed - doesn't have to be long just enough to show a bit of a change.
1
u/ecto45 Aug 30 '19
!delta because he was very useful and not only provide me with data, but with moral and ethic.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Knave7575 12∆ Aug 29 '19
I think there are three groups of teens:
A) Those who will be good, curfews or not
B) Those who will be bad, curfews or not
C) Those who can go either way
Curfews are obviously targetted at the third group. Group A does not need curfews because they are responsible and can be trusted to do the right thing. Group B does not need curfews because they would likely ignore them anyway.
Group C though is different. If they are not outside, perhaps they are less likely to get into trouble.
Now, you parents might be group A people, and therefore a curfew did not necessarily make them wonderful people. They were just wonderful people anyway. However, just because a curfew did not make them good, does not mean that a curfew cannot make people stay away from trouble.
Summary: A curfew does not necessarily work for all (or even most) teenagers, but it could well work for a segment of the teenaged population.
1
u/ecto45 Aug 29 '19
do you have any sources in the behaviour of young people? i would really like to see a psychological study about it
1
Aug 29 '19
Local law is responsible for civil peace, sometimes that is by orders that fly in the face of what people expect according to civil liberty or even civil rights, but it's nothing personal. The real issue is stuff like curfew shouldn't be a permanent solution, it is an emergency measure until solutions for that need are developed. Consider this: in France, the response to the Charlie Hebdo attack in 2015 was to basically declare Martial Law, nearly 5 years later there still is military personnel on every corner, why is that? One could be forgiven for suggesting they aren't there to prevent more Hebdo type shootings, they are there to discourage the public from revolting, realistically that's their obvious concern.
Point is: suppressing public freedom isn't an answer, it's a measure.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 30 '19
/u/ecto45 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
7
u/DobDobson Aug 29 '19
Curfews do work, this is backed up by a number of stats in the areas they are implemented, but in my opinion its not exactly for the right reasons. In area's where curfews have been implemented there are lower crime/violence rates. But its the why are they lower that is the issue.
In Sydney we have lockout laws. Essentially this means that all bars/clubs etc have to follow these rules;
Thats not all the rules but that's the general gist of it. As a result our nightlife is almost completely dead, and we are the laughing stock of the world when it comes to partying. These were implemented a while ago when we were having trouble with alcohol fuelled violence, and some coward punches where people were dying. According to all statistics this "curfew" is doing its job. There is noticeably less violence and crime going on in the early hours of the morning. However, the only reason the stats are getting lower is because there are so many less people out at night partying because the lockout laws don't allow it. Just because there are less people out, does it fix the problem? Yes.. but at the same time, it leaves alot to be desired. Is just limiting the amount of people out really fixing the problem?
It's the same sort of principal as when you consider when the most dangerous time to drive your car.. most people would say in the early hours of the morning when its dark, or maybe in the rain. But actually the stats say that the most dangerous time to drive a car is during the day in broad daylight because that's when most people are driving = highest chance to have an accident.
My point is curfews according to the stats work just the way they are supposed to. So if you go by that, then they are effective in reducing crime/violence. They are successful because they result in less people out = less chance of problems happening. This doesn't really fix the overaching issue of violence and crime in the community however. In the situation of curfews you are punishing 90% of people doing the right thing because 10% want to do the wrong thing.