Laws restricting teens should be abolished.

These laws are more likely to protect than to turn the youth to crime. Point by point:Work: even in the Western countries, employers tend to overcome regulations which they do not consider important. For example, workers are often made to work overtime without any extra salary. Another point is that people tend to be disrespectful to young people. This way, their work conditions will necessarily become worse than the adults'. The authorities could help, however, the youth usually considers the system as corrupt, useless and restricting, therefore is unlikely to turn there for help. Meanwhile, adults, while not trusting it entirely, believe in the authorities somewhat more. That said, parental consent and knowledge is a good way to fight back many of the abuses and half-legal employments. Also, youth do not need to turn to the criminals for money: they can easily earn it via small, short-run tasks, from distributing leaflets to teaching younger students. The problem here is not the law - it is that teens are not informed enough about their possibilities.Education: while it could be argued that there is nothing necessary apart from the basic tips of doing physical work, finding a home, and the alike, a few things are needed to be pointed out: one is that basic cultural knowledge and basic scientific knowledge makes one more broad-minded and, even more importantly, more critical, which is crucial nowadays. And critical thinking is a skill which has to be acquired via education - while one may encounter the "don't believe in anybody" thumb rule soon, without knowledge, they will never be able to spot the well-hidden lies, which might be included in complex sentence structures, high level words, or numbers acquired via a non-scientific approach. One could argue that these skills can be acquired throughout your lifetime, however, younger people's brains are more capable of learning. We also should note that, as I said already, many teens consider the necessities as bad things - and therefore would like to escape from them. One's education has a significant impact on their lives, which is often realized tens of years after quitting the school. No education is just like bad education. And, as Henry Brooks Adams said: "A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops." If one did not learn enough, you may never know what it will cause in their lifetime.In the other two points, you come up with the relation of the laws to crime. Thus, let me point out that the more educated a person is, the less likely they tend to become criminals. "He who opens a school door, closes a prison." - Victor HugoRunaway: while abolishing this law would certainly have a positive consequence, the negative effects would be major as well. One is that with this law, it is easier to find the youth who were running away - indeed some teens turn to crime to evade, however, most of them had ran away because of a not discussed issue, which could range from depression to in-family problems. These teens are unlikely to turn to crime in order to evade capturing, and therefore, are more likely to get home. Do not forget: it might be hard to reverse their decisions without help! Also, when they are found, these issues are likely to be discussed with either their family or, in special cases, with the help of a psychiatrist. This way, this law is actually useful, as many of the young people running away will eventually get back to normal life. We also should mention that the police search often finds out that the lost teenager as actually been murdered. If this law would be abolished, there is a high chance that there would be even more unsolved cases of lost children.Summarizing, I believe that due to the fact that teenagers are not emotinally stable, nor respected, and therefore are more likely to be victims, these laws actually protect them instead of forcing them to turn to crime and are not putting heavy burdens on them.