Youth Crime debate help.... URGENT!!!?

Question

Topic: There should be a curfew on Teenagers to stop them going out at night (9pm-ish). Another is they should be banned from wearing hoodies (not just at night) (these two arguments work in conjunction)i'm the propostion by the way!

Answer 1

Unfortunately these would both involve some type of parental control! Maybe if the parents were held responsible for their children instead of society as a whole these children wouldn't be out in hoodies after 9pm in the first place.

Answer 2

for - teenagers should be given a curfew because most anti social behaviour is committed by teenagers after dark. giving a curfew will help put vulnerable people's minds at rest and help curb anti social behaviour.



against - not all teenagers commit anti social behaviour, therefore why is it fair to punish everyone for the faults of the minority? Giving a curfew will also require policing. To put more police on the streets after dark is going to cost the tax payer a substantial amount more than it is now, and in light of the current financial situation, surely we should be taking measures to help save people money rather than costing the community more money?



hoodies - for - a hoodie hides the youth's face and therefore provides a measure of anonymity. Individuals or groups are more likely to commit a crime if they have the advantage of being anonymous than if they can be identified.



against - joggers wear hoodies, are you going to ban all sports wear now? I am a single mum and I wear a hoodie in the winter sometimes because it keeps me warm - does this mean i'm out to commit a crime? Stereotypes are what cause antisocial behaviour, not clothing. If you stereotype all kids in hoodies as antisocial, you will start to treat them as such. As a result, they will start to act to support this creating a vicious circle.

Answer 3

9pm..are you joking?



Marie that was a really good answer



Pravster, against so totally wins XD



Im 16 and out till past midnight sometimes, i have never done anything wrong to any member of the public. I smile to people when i see them and try and make people think nicely of youths. I go out and have a good time with my friends, without doing any harm to anybody. It would completely ruin my clean social life if i had to be in at 9.

Answer 4

My solution is public flogging and fining of the parents who through bad or negligent parenting, allow their kids to become criminals!!! Why only look at the symptomatic result?

Answer 5

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights should easily answer your question as to whether youths should have curfews or not.





"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,







~~~

Argument 1:

"Teenagers don't have rights because they're not adults!"



"Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."



It lays it out right there. All humans are BORN free and equal. Not "humans are equal as soon as they're 18"



"Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."



"Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."





Youth curfews are discriminatory. People will quote statistics and ramble on about "youth crime", but then why don't we impose curfews on racial minorities that have higher crime rates? Because that would be discrimination. This is no different.

~~~





Argument 2:

"We need trouble-making teens off the street at night!"



"Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."



As established by Articles one, two and seven of the UDHR, youths are people, and therefore have the rights of humans. Locking me in my house after 9 PM would be a gross violation of my right to be safe against Arbitrary Detention.



If I'm not causing trouble, why should I be punished for it? Collective punishment is a barbaric practice.

~~~



Argument 3:

"Minors have no right to be roaming around the streets

at night!"



There are two main counter-points here:



"Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state."



So long as I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I not be free to "roam around the streets"?





"Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."



Liberty is defined as "personal freedom from servitude, confinement or oppression"



I live in a free country. Besides; if a person is a dedicated mischief-maker, a curfew won't stop them.

~~~



Argument 4:

"If teenagers are out late, they're making trouble! Why do they need to be out?"



"Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."



Even though you probably won't be charged for violating a curfew (in some cases you are - 90 days in jail), the principle still stands that a person is always assumed to be a law-abiding citizen until it is proven otherwise.





"Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."



So long as I'm not out "making trouble", what I'm doing is none of your business. To be treated like a criminal when one is not is definitely an "attack upon his honour", not to mention a person's privacy.

~~~



Argument 5:

"We need to pass anti-gang ordinances. No gatherings of youths!"



"Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."



I have the right to be with people (unless, of course, there's some kind of military law imposed for fear of National safety/riots, such as the War Measures Act etc.)



In addition, this also assumes that any gathering of youth is "up to no good" and is related to a gang. As I've already shown you, the presumption of innocence derails this whole argument.

~~~









Do youth curfews have negative effects? Of course.



As I've explained to you, a youth curfew violates multiple Articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.



These rights are the foundation of society and western civilizations. Think of cultures that do not have these rights; would you like to live in them?



Curfews are discriminatory. Curfews defy the presumption of innocence. Curfews violate freedom of assembly. Curfews violate freedom of mobility. Curfews ignore the freedom to be safe from arbirtary detention.



Essenti