There should be curfew laws for juveniles

Concluding my argument about whether there should be curfew laws for juveniles or not, I think there should be. In situations of violence and riots, if you say there shouldn't be curfew laws, how else are you going to improve the safety of the city in a short amount of time? In point 6, con said that "There are more effective strategies of reducing juvenile crime that have been proven to work, such as providing services and counseling to at risk youth and their families," but that is not dichotomy. You can provide counseling, and set curfew laws. Furthermore, counseling and other services take time for it to take effect, but setting a curfew law can work immediately. Therefore it is needed especially before the juveniles of a city receives proper moral education. I am not arguing that any kind of curfew law will work. In con's example for point 1, I believe the curfew law should be set when the burglary rate is on the rise, not when the burglary rate has already risen and is already dropping. If the curfew law is set right, it will work. For example, the curfew set in Dallas mentioned in the study explained the implementation of the curfew law and put posters and radio announcements about it before it was enacted. The police could give the juveniles verbal warning, take them home, issue a ticket with a fine as high as $500, or take them into custody. The effects were immediate as the juvenile victimization during curfew hours had dropped 17.7%. http://emlab.berkeley.edu... Since it reduces juvenile victimization, we can't say it shouldn't be there if the kids don't like it. That is akin to saying we shouldn't give children homework because they don't like it. Con's 4th and 5th point are wrong in that in the day there are more people, particularly adults. Most people sleep at night. Hence, the situation in point 4 is less likely to happen. There are also more eye witnesses if any crime is going to happen. For this reason, I find con's claim that "most juvenile crime happens during the day" (point 2) a bit doubtable, for it is unclear how the fact is obtained. More crimes would be reported during the day, especially during rush hour than at night where more crimes are unnoticed. The fact could be obtained from the number of reports, or the time the crime is reported. Con says "Alcohol can be problematic for teens. We have a driving age because of their inexperience. But being outside at night without an adult does not harm anyone," but we have a driving age not because of inexperience (since adults start learning to drive from inexperience too), but because they are not developed in the neurological sense. We have a alcohol age because although we can trust the juvenile and his/her family to control alcohol consumption, the reality is that it doesn't happen that way. This is the same with curfew laws. You can't just trust and assume that every family knows what they are doing. If that were the case, juvenile crimes wouldn't be rising right now. Juveniles are not mature enough. With the street being more vacant, it's easier for juveniles to get pulled into using drugs, they are more likely to get hurt if they encounter a crime, and because it's easier to get into car accidents. And finally, in point 3 con said "They can simply go to an arcade with older friends. Many curfews have exceptions where a minor can be out with an adult, " but most curfew laws exceptions require the juvenile to be accompanied by parent or guardian only, not just some random adult. Moreover, in the worst case scenario, if the teen goes to the arcade with a very irresponsible adult, then the family probably wouldn't allow the teen to go out at night with that adult if he comes home in the morning. The point is that curfew laws make it easier to discipline bad behaviors. I am not saying that it would completely eliminate bad behaviors from juveniles.