Is A Curfew The Answer To Youth Crime?

[bush_cheney2004]

Ottawa (that's in Canada) youth curfew law:

The Ottawa Police Service would like to remind parents and youth about the curfew provisions of the Child and Family Services Act. Under this act, no parent of a child less than 16 years of age shall permit the child to loiter in a public place between midnight and 6 a.m. Therefore officers will use this as one of their enforcement tools in order to encourage more parental responsibility. Officers have been directed to issue warnings and charges to parents who breach this section of the act. It is punishable by up to a $1,000 fine.

EXCERPTS FROM THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT Allowing child to loiter, etc.

79(5) No parent of a child less than sixteen years of age shall permit the child to,

1. loiter in a public place between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m.; or

2. be in a place of public entertainment between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m., unless the parent accompanies the child or authorizes a specified individual eighteen years of age or older to accompany the child.

http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/safety-and-crime-prevention/Youth-Curfews.asp

Edited August 11, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

Ottawa (that's in Canada) youth curfew law:

The Ottawa Police Service would like to remind parents and youth about the curfew provisions of the Child and Family Services Act. Under this act, no parent of a child less than 16 years of age shall permit the child to loiter in a public place between midnight and 6 a.m. Therefore officers will use this as one of their enforcement tools in order to encourage more parental responsibility. Officers have been directed to issue warnings and charges to parents who breach this section of the act. It is punishable by up to a $1,000 fine.

EXCERPTS FROM THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT Allowing child to loiter, etc.

79(5) No parent of a child less than sixteen years of age shall permit the child to,

1. loiter in a public place between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m.; or

2. be in a place of public entertainment between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m., unless the parent accompanies the child or authorizes a specified individual eighteen years of age or older to accompany the child.

http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/safety-and-crime-prevention/Youth-Curfews.asp

Sounds like BS to me. If a 15 year old is outside, with the permission of his/her parents, after midnight, it's no one's business but theirs. Police need to be going after criminals, not kids.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sounds like BS to me. If a 15 year old is outside, with the permission of his/her parents, after midnight, it's no one's business but theirs. Police need to be going after criminals, not kids.

I disagree....each city can set its own limits based on need. Ottawa certainly has...no need to travel as far as Baltimore. Last year I watched two "15-year-olds" milling about at 2AM, and was not surprised when they ran over to a neighbour's car to rifle through its contents. They ran off when confronted, no doubt to seek guidance and wisdom from their parents.

My city has age staggered curfew laws, and it works out just fine. We even have parking restrictions and lawn watering bans.

Edited August 11, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

My city has age staggered curfew laws, and it works out just fine. We even have parking restrictions and lawn watering bans.

Yes and other cities have no curfew laws and it works out just fine too. Until presented with very compelling evidence, I will maintain my stance that police patrolling at night would better spend their time on looking for criminals rather than children.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes and other cities have no curfew laws and it works out just fine too. Until presented with very compelling evidence, I will maintain my stance that police patrolling at night would better spend their time on looking for criminals rather than children.

That's fine, but I don't think police are specifically patrolling for curfew violations. As stated in the Ottawa law, it is a tool that legally restricts unsupervised behaviour by minors. Roaming groups of youths after midnight in any city will attract police attention regardless of curfew laws.

When my son was on summer break from high school, we liked to walk to the 24 hour supermarket for ice cream at 3AM just for the hell of it. Once stopped by police, all was well once I was identified as his parent.

Edited August 11, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[-1=e^ipi]

To be honest, a curfew would be somewhat effective.

For example, I was mugged and assaulted over a month ago by some youths in Ottawa around midnight. Suffered a concussion for a month, and the same people went on a mugging spree for several nights in different parts of Ottawa.

[Bonam]

To be honest, a curfew would be somewhat effective.

Yes, there are all kinds of government actions that could be somewhat effective in curbing crime. Pervasive surveillance, military on the streets, shooting criminals on sight, etc. The question is not one of effectiveness but of whether it is the right thing to do or not.

For example, I was mugged and assaulted over a month ago by some youths in Ottawa around midnight. Suffered a concussion for a month, and the same people went on a mugging spree for several nights in different parts of Ottawa.

You have my sympathies. Hopefully you've recovered fully, and the perpetrators have been / will be punished appropriately.

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

The democratically elected cannot override the constitution. Thand dog. Although Harper keeps on trying. And thank dog for the SCC.

[eyeball]

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

Which is as quickly as we let them.

I was on a regional district planning committee that dealt with an application to continue holding a rave on a private campground hereabouts. The police made a presentation along with a few concerned citizens who all wailed about the dangers and threats and keeping our children and communities safe. The annual rave had been operating for a number of years with good enough security and first aid attendants and with little if any effect to our communities or children for years. I tried to point out that shutting it down to quell the partying would do nothing to stop it but drive people even farther away into the boonies to do their partying unattended and without any sort of mitigating organization. Mine was the only vote in favour of letting the rave continue.

I've noticed over time how the access to every little party beach or hilltop or what have you that we used when I was a kid that we could walk too are now all either cut off, shut down or developed with an eye to deterring young people from being...young people.

Now they have to drive to party spots farther and farther away as each new spot is discovered and shut down. IMHO that's where a real danger to our communities and children lies.

Edited August 12, 2014 by eyeball

[-1=e^ipi]

If a person is too young to be criminally charged as an adult, then why should they be out between 12 am and 6 am? If they are out at that time, their guardians are irresponsible and they are likely up to no good.

[dre]

If a person is too young to be criminally charged as an adult, then why should they be out between 12 am and 6 am? If they are out at that time, their guardians are irresponsible and they are likely up to no good.

You claim they are "likely up to no good" which is basically a claim that the majority of minors out after midnight are commiting crimes. I would LOVE to see you prove that or provide any kind of evidence to back up that claim.

When I was a kid I would stay up and skateboard, sit on the beach, stare at the stars. Theres all kinds of things kids do besides commit crime.

In any case, in a free society its just frankly none of the governments business.

[Shady]

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

Exactly. The best answer to youth crime is a two parent family. But you're not allowed to suggest that anymore. It's not compassionate or understanding.

[WestCoastRunner]

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?

This is such a biased response and I'm guessing it is because of your religion. Many, many two parent families both work full-time so that will impact supervision of a child the same as a single parent family. Can you provide any statistics on negative results of single parent families. I can assure you that I can find just as many positive results of single parent families. More undivided attention spent with children, for one and that is a huge benefit.

[WestCoastRunner]

Exactly. The best answer to youth crime is a two parent family. But you're not allowed to suggest that anymore. It's not compassionate or understanding.

What a load of crap.

[WestCoastRunner]

Advantages of a single parent family (both to the parent and to the children)

• Parenting style -:Parents do not always parent in harmony; They may have vastly different expectations of their children and ideas about discipline. On may approve of spanking, while the other finds it abusive and prefers of time-outs. A single parent home has the ability to parent the way they feel is most effective and manageable. They can set the pace for getting ready for school in the morning, doing homework and completing chores in the evening and what time your child goes to bed at night. No negotiations required with the other parent.
• More bonding. Spouses can be awfully needy. Spending quality time with your kids is not always easy when there is another adult in the house. As a single parent, you and your kids can play games, talk, or just relax, without anyone else butting in or demanding attention.
• Build self-esteem. All of these extra responsibilities will show you that you can think for yourself, and you are capable of making wise decisions for your children.

  This will boost your confidence, and build up your self-esteem. Financially supporting yourself and your kids, and managing money responsibly will also boost your confidence, another of the big advantages of single parenting.

• Less stress. When you aren't spending all of your time and energy fighting with a spouse, you feel happier, your children feel happier, and there is much less stress in your home. You finally have the time and energy to spend on what really matters: the kids.

  Children learn by example. When they see you happy and stress-free, they will be able to develop healthier relationships when they grow up.

• Although you have to do all of these things as a single parent, somehow it makes you feel less resentful when there is no-one taking you for granted. There is also less work to do – one less person to cook for and clean up after, and less laundry to wash. Another of the advantages of single parenting that many people overlook.

• You get to know yourself. Being alone is a great way to really explore who you are. You are more than an extension of your spouse. For many years, everyone saw you as a couple.

  You probably started to wonder where one left off, and the other began. Being single teaches you how to be happy just being you.

  8) Children feel like part of the team. You don't want to turn your children into little adults, but they will naturally feel more like part of the team, instead of "just the kids".

  Since you will be spending much more time with them alone, they will probably have more of a voice in family decisions. They will learn that what they have to say matters, and that you are willing to listen to their opinions.

  9) Children learn valuable lessons. When your children see you managing the household, holding down a job, and taking care of the finances, they learn these things, too. These lessons will help them to develop into more mature, responsible adults, capable of taking care of themselves.

• Adults that know how to take of themselves make much better mates. The chances of them having healthy adult relationships increases, as well, one of the best advantages of single parenting.

• Freedom. The biggest advantage of single parenting is almost total freedom. Of course, you still have to make sure the children are well cared for, but other than that, you can do whatever you like. You can sleep in on your day off. You can go to bed whenever you like.

  You never have to worry about anyone keeping you up with the TV blaring, or unbearable snoring. You can wash the supper dishes, or leave them until tomorrow – who cares? You get to hold the remote control, and watch anything you like.

  After years of always considering the needs of a life partner, being on your own is like a breath of fresh air.

[Bonam]

Most of these are not really advantages. (Apologize for crappy quote formatting)

• Parenting style -:Parents do not always parent in harmony; They may have vastly different expectations of their children and ideas about discipline. On may approve of spanking, while the other finds it abusive and prefers of time-outs. A single parent home has the ability to parent the way they feel is most effective and manageable. They can set the pace for getting ready for school in the morning, doing homework and completing chores in the evening and what time your child goes to bed at night. No negotiations required with the other parent.

Being exposed to two different parenting styles will show kids that there is more than one way to approach an issue, more than one valid opinion. Rather than perceiving that everything is up to the decision of one autocratic individual.

More bonding. Spouses can be awfully needy. Spending quality time with your kids is not always easy when there is another adult in the house. As a single parent, you and your kids can play games, talk, or just relax, without anyone else butting in or demanding attention.

With two parents, kids are likely to get more 1 on 1 time with 1 of the parents than in the 1 parent case. Most parents understand the value of quality time with their children and act accordingly.

• Build self-esteem. All of these extra responsibilities will show you that you can think for yourself, and you are capable of making wise decisions for your children.

  This will boost your confidence, and build up your self-esteem. Financially supporting yourself and your kids, and managing money responsibly will also boost your confidence, another of the big advantages of single parenting.

And it will boost your self-esteem even more to do all these things while also sharing them with a partner who loves you and appreciates what you are doing.

Less stress. When you aren't spending all of your time and energy fighting with a spouse, you feel happier, your children feel happier, and there is much less stress in your home. You finally have the time and energy to spend on what really matters: the kids.

Children learn by example. When they see you happy and stress-free, they will be able to develop healthier relationships when they grow up.

Why do you assume all the energy in a relationship is used up fighting? Being in a loving relationship is a source of motivation and energy, not the other way around.

Although you have to do all of these things as a single parent, somehow it makes you feel less resentful when there is no-one taking you for granted. There is also less work to do – one less person to cook for and clean up after, and less laundry to wash. Another of the advantages of single parenting that many people overlook.

Why would you be taken for granted? There is likely no one in the world that appreciates you more than your spouse. As for the work to do... no there is way more work to do, because you have to do it all yourself, rather than splitting it between two people. Cooking for 4 is not twice as much work as cooking for 3. Doing laundry for 3 is not as much work as doing laundry for 2, etc, etc. Is this based on some feminist assumption that the husband is a useless oaf who never helps with any household tasks and just sits there and waits for his poor oppressed wife to bring him food before he clobbers her?

You get to know yourself. Being alone is a great way to really explore who you are. You are more than an extension of your spouse. For many years, everyone saw you as a couple.

You probably started to wonder where one left off, and the other began. Being single teaches you how to be happy just being you.

Why can't you be yourself and grow as a person while being in a relationship? This has not been an issue for anyone I know. Is this some kind of feminist ideology thing where women that have husbands are oppressed and can't develop their own personalities or something?

8) Children feel like part of the team. You don't want to turn your children into little adults, but they will naturally feel more like part of the team, instead of "just the kids".

Since you will be spending much more time with them alone, they will probably have more of a voice in family decisions. They will learn that what they have to say matters, and that you are willing to listen to their opinions.

This should always be the case in all families, anyway. It's the quality of the parents, not their number, that determines if they treat their children like human beings or not.

9) Children learn valuable lessons. When your children see you managing the household, holding down a job, and taking care of the finances, they learn these things, too. These lessons will help them to develop into more mature, responsible adults, capable of taking care of themselves.

Yes, and they also learn all these things when watching two people do them, not just 1. And they also learn how to act in a relationship.

• Freedom. The biggest advantage of single parenting is almost total freedom. Of course, you still have to make sure the children are well cared for, but other than that, you can do whatever you like. You can sleep in on your day off. You can go to bed whenever you like.

  You never have to worry about anyone keeping you up with the TV blaring, or unbearable snoring. You can wash the supper dishes, or leave them until tomorrow – who cares? You get to hold the remote control, and watch anything you like.

  After years of always considering the needs of a life partner, being on your own is like a breath of fresh aiir

More nonsense. Your children are gonna impose far stricter restrictions on your schedule than your spouse will. A "life partner" should be respectful enough not to keep you up with the TV blaring. Snoring is an issue that can be addressed in multiple ways. You can wash the supper dishes or leave them til tomorrow whether you have a partner or not. They might even wash them for you so you don't have to! You get to watch whatever the kids like, who are you kidding. And after always considering the needs of your life partner, you get to keep on doing nothing but considering the needs of your kids, 24/7.

Seriously your list sounds like its based on some feminist caricature of a superwoman being freed from her idiot oaf of a husband (as also referred to in your signature) rather than a functional relationship between two decent human beings.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

....Seriously your list sounds like its based on some feminist caricature of a superwoman being freed from her idiot oaf of a husband (as also referred to in your signature) rather than a functional relationship between two decent human beings.

Agreed....my wife and I enjoy the many advantages of marital partnership, which includes enough income to buy everyone their own TV and remote !

[Mighty AC]

In the right environment the more intelligent, committed, caring, compassionate family members and authority figures a child has a relationship with, the better. However, far too often a single parent family is far superior to the two parent option. Children raised by a single parent are not default criminals and should not be treated as such.

I thought cons cared about freedoms. They seem to be the first to cry 'ageism' when the rights of the blue haired group are restricted but have no problem oppressing youth. The fine art of hypocrisy.

[The_Squid]

Can we agree that children are better off with 2 parents?

Same-sex marriage has a lower divorce rate than hetero marriage. We should encourage gay only parents since this is the case....

[Big Guy]

I cannot understand anyone advocating that a one parent family is a better environment for children than a 2 parent family. But there are many who advocate that single people are happier than married people. There are really no stats to argue for or against that condition and comparison.

As human beings we all have gifts and faults that are shared with our children but I still believe that the chances of a child benefitting from the gifts of 2 people and the faults of two people are far greater than from one. Just the fact that there are two people in making decisions on the child's upbringing and trying to negate each others faults has to be an advantage for the child.

Certainly there are many children in certain single parent family who are better served than children in certain two parent families but the overall advantage has to be with the condition where there are two supervisors, decision makers, income earners etc.

I am not prepared to advocate a single parent family as the first choice for the upbringing of any child.

[GostHacked]

It all depends on the level of either one parent or two parents to get involved in their child's life. Typically two are better than one.

[Mighty AC]

If all participants are positive influences and happily committed to the family unit, why not 4 or 8?

[bush_cheney2004]

It takes a village....and high taxes.

[PIK]

Or time for parents to be parents again.

[Bonam]

If all participants are positive influences and happily committed to the family unit, why not 4 or 8?

Indeed, in many cases having grandparents actively involved in upbringing can be very helpful.