A Curfew for City Kids Under 18

My opponent stated several good reasons why there should be a curfew, however I must disagree with them. (I'm not positive what time this proposed curfew is for, but I think it's 12:00 from the references to "12:00" and "midnight". Correct me if I'm wrong.) 1. Protection from Danger It is true that it can be dangerous outside at night. However, I don't think that the solution for that is a curfew. Instead, I think that it would be better to trust that parents will make responsible decisions about allowing their children out late. In order to survive as adults, children should be able to recognize that it might not be very safe for them to be out wandering city streets in the dead of night, and if they can't recognize that as children they may not recognize it as adults. All the dangers mentioned could also be a hazard to an adult; there are some adults who could be mugged or harassed by a drunkard. In fact, a study in 2009 showed that a young adult (20-24 years of age) was slightly more likely to be a crime victim than someone under the age of nineteen. Although a curfew might protect some children, others have been robbed in broad daylight. I think the problem here is that there are muggings ands robberies period, not that children are around when they happen. 2. Protecting Others I've never heard of a middle school kid committing murder, although I wouldn't be surprised if high school and middle school kids have been discovered stealing. However, the problem is that children are killing and robbing people, regardless of when they're doing it. Children who are willing to kill people (which is against the law) are not likely to concern themselves with a curfew, as they have already proven themselves perfectly willing to break the law. I am also concerned about my opponent's statement that such acts are commmitted "in the complete darkness and when there are no witnesses around". If it's in the complete darkness with no witnesses around, I fail to see how a curfew will help. If the authorities cannot prevent murder by these delinquents, I don't think it's likely that they'll be able to enforce the curfew on them. After all, it should be of higher priority to prevent people being killed than to bust someone for being out when they're not supposed to be. Likewise, if there are gangs hanging about taking pride in murdering people, I doubt that they are going to be scared to step foot out past curfew. If they can currently exist with their gang behavior unchecked, I highly doubt that a curfew can be powerfully enforced upon them. 3. No Reason for it My opponent acknowledged that there might be a need for someone under 18 to be out of their home, already that's a potential reason against such a curfew. Similarly, one might need to run a quick errand, or just wish visit a friend. Just because something isn't essential doesn't mean that it should be banned. That's like saying "There is absolutely no need for someone to play video games, so we should make them all illegal.". Of course, my opponent has already a counterargument for that, saying that they should basically take care of business before the curfew. Somtimes children might like to celebrate a little bit longer than the curfew might allow, or they might want to do something else after curfew that is completely harmless. I will deal with the claims of alcohol, drugs, and other substances at parties in the same way as the murders; there should be more of an effort to stop these violations of the law rather than placing a curfew. Someone who is illegally drinking alcohol or illegally using drugs just isn't likely to worry overmuch about breaking curfew. I also think that if these parties can exist unchecked, it would be surprising if the curfew could even be enforced. It sounds like are a lot of problems more pressing that aren't being given enough attention, so I highly doubt that a curfew would be enforceable to the degree necessary to be effective. I am somewhat nonplussed by my opponent's slight changing of the restrictions "for children 18 and under". In the United States, an 18 year old is legally an adult, and I am not sure if it would be very fair to place a curfew on adults too (that has the making of a police state). Correct me if that was intentional, but I am going to disregard that as unintentional, as it would be a severe attack on one's rights to put a curfew on an adult. In conclusion, I don't think that the described curfew would be of any practical use. If the targeted group contains members who are already murdering people, robbing people, and abusing substances (all illegally), it appears that the enforcement of the law is already weak. A curfew would likely take an even lower priority as far as enforcement is concerned, and would have even less of an effect. If you've already got murder and a few robberies under your belt, breaking curfew probably doesn't even show up on the radar. Likewise, if you're a cop and you have a murder and a few robberies reported, you're not going to first chase down that kid who's breaking curfew. All in all, I don't think that there should be a curfew for children because it won't be effective. Sources: http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com...