Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I spent some of my youth in a small town in Southern Ontario. I do recollect that there was a curfew in affect where you could be picked up by the local police if you were outside after a certain hour depending on your age. Looks like Baltimore is going to try something similar;

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/strictest-curfew-u-s-takes-effect-baltimore-n176766

Baltimore's controversial curfew law, the strictest in the nation, took effect Friday night with the aim of protecting children. The curfew requires those 13 and younger to be indoors by 9. Those 14 to 16 can stay out until 10 p.m. on school nights and 11 p.m. over the summer and on weekends.

Is setting a curfew a legitimate and effective method of decreasing juvenile delinquency?

Would it work in a large city like Toronto?

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

A government imposed curfew is an arbitrary and unjustifiable breach of the rights and freedoms of a group of people based solely on their age. In my opinion, completely unacceptable. However, it will likely go largely unopposed, as people in the targeted age groups have no political power.

If the concern is for the safety of children, as the mayor claims, then she should have sent the police out to make the streets safe from criminals, rather than to harass children.

Probably we will have to wait until an idiot police officer shoots to death an innocent kid out at 9:01 pm before politicians take a look at repealing this law.

Edited by Bonam
Posted

Chasing teenagers around at 10pm is a great use of police resources....

As opposed to camping out by the side of the road trying to fill a quota of speeding tickets of course.

Posted

Ageism is a very effective tool. I think we should also round up senior citizens who drive at night or are in the grocery store during evenings and weekends.

"Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire

Posted

Ageism is a very effective tool. I think we should also round up senior citizens who drive at night or are in the grocery store during evenings and weekends.

Only if they plan to pay with coins.

Posted

Only if they plan to pay with coins.

Or use coupons, tell the cashier all about their family or grandchildren or drive 20 clicks below the speed limit to 'be safe'.

"Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire

Posted

Or use coupons, tell the cashier all about their family or grandchildren or drive 20 clicks below the speed limit to 'be safe'.

It's a speed limit, not a speed recommendation!

Posted

To be more serious though, I think a curfew is a ridiculous idea. Especially, if the intent is to honestly keep the teens "safe". If Baltimore is that dangerous at night police resources should not be squandered rounding up kids. Baltimore does have a ridiculously high murder rate and high levels of gun violence right up there with Newark NJ. Which is odd, because I thought the NRA and the Repubs said more guns should equal less crime.

Anyway, in my experience, dark empty streets lead to more crime, not less.

"Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire

Posted (edited)

It seems to me like an attempt by the city to take over a role of the family. A commentator and the mayor stated that the new law was supported by most mothers. Perhaps this is just another problem that results in an increasing problem of families consisting of only single mothers (or single parents) to look after children. The state then has to become the other parent to enforce child behaviour that should be the responsibility of the supervising adults.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-number-of-children-living-in-single-parent-homes-has-nearly-doubled-in

Edited by Big Guy

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Posted

It seems to me like an attempt by the city to take over a role of the family. A commentator and the mayor stated that the new law was supported by most mothers. Perhaps this is just another problem that results in an increasing problem of families consisting of only single mothers (or single parents) to look after children. The state then has to become the other parent to enforce child behaviour that should be the responsibility of the supervising adults.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-number-of-children-living-in-single-parent-homes-has-nearly-doubled-in

A religious site is your cite for single-parent families are bad?

Broken links to the studies at that site (coincidence?). So they are making claims that are not backed up by any studies. Can you cite actual studies about single-parent families being worse in terms of contributing to crime?

Posted

A religious site is your cite for single-parent families are bad?

Broken links to the studies at that site (coincidence?). So they are making claims that are not backed up by any studies. Can you cite actual studies about single-parent families being worse in terms of contributing to crime?

I am not sure what you are asking.

If you are asking if generally, a two parent family is a better growing and nurturing environment for children than a single parent family then I say yes - I do.

The alternative would be to state that a single parent family is a better environment for a child than a 2 parent family. I do not think that anyone would advocate that position.

The alternative

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Posted

If you are asking if generally, a two parent family is a better growing and nurturing environment for children than a single parent family then I say yes - I do.

Please provide a cite that kids from single parent families commit more crime. It could be true... I'm not saying that it isn't, but your assertions are meaningless without actual evidence.

Opinion from a religious website is not proper evidence.

Posted (edited)

How do conditions and decisions in the foreign city of Baltimore apply to Toronto ? How do single parent studies from the U.S. apply ? What are the Canadian experiences with curfew laws ? Where is the Canadian content for this idea ?

Curfew laws are very common for U.S. municipalities, as are park closing times and restrictions on unaccompanied minors in shopping malls after certain hours. But the U.S. is not Canada.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/rachel_sa/2010/05/07/13872156.html

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

Please provide a cite that kids from single parent families commit more crime. It could be true... I'm not saying that it isn't, but your assertions are meaningless without actual evidence.

Opinion from a religious website is not proper evidence.

I guess that I am extrapolating causes of crime - but perhaps crime being only one of the negative results of a single parent family. We may agree that the major cause of crime is poverty. If the single parent is working then that would impact on the time for supervision of the child. If the single parent is not working then the family is living on minimal government subsidy. Either way the child is effected.

But this deviates from the curfew question. At what point should the state get involved in the upbringing and supervision of the child?

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Posted
But this deviates from the curfew question. At what point should the state get involved in the upbringing and supervision of the child?

The state is already heavily involved. Most children spend a considerable amount of their lives in schools paid for and run by the state.

Posted

I guess that I am extrapolating causes of crime - but perhaps crime being only one of the negative results of a single parent family. We may agree that the major cause of crime is poverty. If the single parent is working then that would impact on the time for supervision of the child. If the single parent is not working then the family is living on minimal government subsidy. Either way the child is effected.

But this deviates from the curfew question. At what point should the state get involved in the upbringing and supervision of the child?

More assertions with no actual evidence. We can speculate on a lot of things... but your only cite thus far has been a wacky religious website.

Posted

The state is already heavily involved. Most children spend a considerable amount of their lives in schools paid for and run by the state.

Parents are held accountable for their children when things go bad. The state is not held accountable when things go bad with children. It's tagged as being the parents fault. The state wants to take more and more responsibilities for your children. You know it takes a community to raise a child. The state will proudly tout their accomplishments, but rarely hold themselves accountable when things go bad. It all gets blamed on the parent and society.

It also seems like these state run schools are failing the children. Everyone's a winner, everyone gets a trophy, no child left behind, teacher get's fired for giving a kid a zero for work not even attempted. Not the right message we are sending to the kids.

A curfew is a police state action. Martial law if you will. Parents need to understand the situation they are being put in by the state. I guess the terrorists won.

Posted (edited)

A curfew is a police state action. Martial law if you will. Parents need to understand the situation they are being put in by the state. I guess the terrorists won.

Of course it's a police state action. The West is turning into police states as fast as it possibly can.

Edited by Bonam
Posted

...

A curfew is a police state action. Martial law if you will. Parents need to understand the situation they are being put in by the state. I guess the terrorists won.

But it was the mayor and municipal council - the democratically elected representative group of the majority who made the decision. The police are mandated to follow the direction of the democratically elected government. I do not understand how this legislation can be seen as martial law.

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Posted

But it was the mayor and municipal council - the democratically elected representative group of the majority who made the decision.

The fact that an individual or group are democratically elected does not mean that they cannot abuse, misuse, or overstep their power.

Posted

But it was the mayor and municipal council - the democratically elected representative group of the majority who made the decision. The police are mandated to follow the direction of the democratically elected government. I do not understand how this legislation can be seen as martial law.

Consider it a constitutional thing. Your freedom of movement should not be restricted. Aside from private properties, public spaces are for, the public.

Mind you, if I had kids of that age, they would not be out playing that late.

Posted

Mind you, if I had kids of that age, they would not be out playing that late.

Indeed. The time that kids should be at home or outside should be between a child and their parents.

Posted

Of course it's a police state action. The West is turning into police states as fast as it possibly can.

As fast as it can? Does this only apply when "white people" are inconvenienced, as "visible minorities" have been subjected to such limits for a long time in Canada and elsewhere.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,900
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Ana Silva
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Ana Silva earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Scott75 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Political Smash went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Politics1990 earned a badge
      Very Popular
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...