Many cities have implemented curfews to protect children from the dangers posed on city streets at night and to prevent young people from the trouble they might create for themselves while out unsupervised or from being targeted by others, who would want to do them wrong. Juvenile curfew laws prohibit people, usually under the age of 18, from being in public after certain hours. With this curfew, parents do not worry as much about their children. It helps them to know, that the kid is safe and home. To prevent worrying about their children, many parents also set earlier curfews of their own, if they feel their kids should be home even earlier than dictated by the government.
Curfews are ineffective, and do not fulfil their purpose. Curfews are often put in place to keep someone under the age of 18 from leaving their homes in the periods curfews are made effective (“Teen Curfews Should…”). This would ideally, deter teenage crime. The thing curfews are trying to prove is that restricting youths, forcing them to stay in their houses will decrease crime (Harrington).
One reason why Curfew should be eliminated is it targets the wrong people. Experts have said that little criminal activity happens overnight which proves that most of the kids that are being kept inside are not looking to break any laws. In Ferguson and Baltimore police blamed teens for most of the problems but their logs showed that most
They teens who do have a curfew also have a set schedule which can help them in track of what they do. If they don’t have a set schedule they won’t be busy which will lead them to doing other things that will get them in trouble with a crime at the worst. The teens who have a curfew have responsibility because they have to show their parents that if they let them out and they are given a curfew they can still go out and make it home into so there parents can trust that they’ll do as they say.
Secondly,most people even if they can not get a gun they will easily just steal it. Banning guns will not do anything except make people steal more to get a gun which will just cause more problems. Also making stricter gun laws will also include police officers which will give them a disadvantage if they have no gun or have new rules while using the weapon.
This is universalism. Hoyt knew what was right from wrong due to having history in the police academy. To Hoyt, how Alonzo is handling things isn’t the approach he should’ve taken. The second scene is when Alonzo pressured Hoyt to smoke the marijuana that he got off the kids and he knew it wasn’t anything to play with. Alonzo knew the different types of drugs that were “laced” in this pot
Argumentative III - Teen Curfews A lot of talk has been going around about a teen curfew, mainly a teen curfew that restricts them to be out no later than ten P.M. or later depending on the area. Most are saying that it is unconstitutional and should not be supported because it takes away, teens under the age of eighteen, their rights; while others think that it will lower crime rates and create a safer place for growing teens. But are we really so sure of that? People will learn that giving teens a curfew of any time will not only be ignored, but also raise crime rates in the worse way.
The relationship between parents and teenagers also will not closer than before. So that, we all responsible for preventing teenagers in drug abuse. What are the ways to prevent teenagers in drug abuse? First and foremost, parents must not involve itself in drug abuse if they involve their children might follow it because all activity that does by parents will follow by their children. Parents cannot just
Sherwood Middle School students are not allowed to chew gum in school. The district decided that gum should not be allowed in school. They think that gum will cause a sticky mess and popping will cause a distraction. There are both pros and cons to the no chewing gum in school rule. Gum helps some people , but some people use it irresponsibly.
When young adults below the age of 21 drink, it rarely even crosses their mind that what they are doing is illegal, they simply see drinking as one of the symbols of adulthood and seeing as they are adults they want to partake. However, every time one of these young adults takes a drink they are actively breaking the law, but it is one so horribly enforced that only around 2 in 1,000 instances of underage drinking results in arrest or citation (Wolfson 1995). This is exactly why underage drinkers are so brazen and have seemingly no respect for the law. They know they will not be caught. This habitual law breaking may lead to the idea that breaking other laws will also not end in arrest, which is often not the case.
Drinking age being 18 would also open the doors for young adults to drink in safer public places like bars, rather than unsupervised places. Surely people would rather hear of kids sipping beer out if a red solo cup at a well patrolled fraternity party, than drinking shots and popping a vicodin in somebody 's basement off campus. Lowering the drinking age will also help dissolve the need for kids to “pregame” and bring the college fake ID business to a dead stop. It can 't really help reduce the binge drinking, drug overdoses, and sexual assaults (Cary). Unsupervised parties could lead to binge drinking and even young adults being drugged by others at a party.
Meanwhile neighboring states, Montana and Wyoming, whom had Idaho’s original legislation, saw their juvenile offense rates go down. A Columbia University researcher compared 15 and 16 year olds who were tried as adults versus those in the juvenile system. He found that 76 percent of those who were prosecuted in criminal court reoffended, offended again after their release, while only 67 percent of those in juvenile centers reoffended (“Juvenile Justice”). These laws, and many others, backfired against the legislature illustrating that juvenile offenders become life-long
It is believed that letting a criminal free from incarceration puts society at risk. Before the reform recidivism rates were high, scaring the public with the idea that criminals can reenter society. When comparing individuals who were sentenced to prison to those in diversion programs, those in diversion programs were more likely to stay out of jail while those who went to jail were more likely to have re-arrests. It was reported that 64% of the treatment sample were arrest-free over a two-year follow up period. Those in the diversion program had recidivism rates as low as 36%; this compares to the group who were given jail time with a recidivism rate of 54% (Parsons, Wei, Henrichson, Drucker, & Trone, 2015).
The reason why officers do not have them on at all times is because they don’t want to be recording very pointless stuff when it’s gonna be wasting the memory of the camera body. Officers turn it on when they are getting off the car or anytime they feel something suspicious is happening. This society is not one that feels protected, but knows when an officer know from right and wrong, many will fight back to have that freedom of speech but it is never really heard from anyone. Officers also know the fact that they are being watched so they can be more careful on how they arrest/ take down a person. This gives a positive point of view to both citizens and police officers.