changing the curfew time

Connecting A major assumption of curfews is that they reduce risk by removing juveniles from public space. However, there is no systematic study of the effects of curfew. Instead of presenting controlled data, proponents and opponents of curfews have made anecdotal statements to the media such as, "Monrovia, California's curfew adoption was followed by a 32 percent decline in residential burglaries" (Ricardi 1997). However, this assertion and others like it require scrutiny. For example, Monrovia had already experienced a forty percent decline in juvenile burglaries, and only had about a dozen juveniles arrested for burglary for each of several years prior to adopting curfew (Criminal Justice Statistics Center 1978-97). Their decline is also not compared to cities that did not enforce curfews. Thus, it is interesting to note that the following hypothetical but factual statement could be made with equal justification: "In 1992, San Francisco authorities dismantled their previously vigorous curfew enforcement, which had resulted in 1,400 arrests during the previous five years. Only three curfew arrests were made during 1993-97. Crime plummeted. From 1992 to 1997, juvenile murders declined fifty percent, property crimes reported to police declined thirty-six percent, and violent crimes reported to police declined by forty-one percent, the latter of which was the largest crime decrease of any large California city. Therefore, abolishing curfews is a crucial step to reduce youth crime and victimization."

There should be no curfew. The curfew is a waste of time and only waste jail space, and the law enforcers time. Also lets state what curfew is acceptable. There shouldn't be a curfew under 12:00am. Once 12:00am hits usually the hoodlums will come out, but if the curfew is set to 10 or 11 pm then it is a waste of time. Those hours are innocent and people won't be coming out of bars until later in the night. Also we all can agree that the people causing the problems are the bumps in our society, most of whom are probably in poverty. So instead a better resolution to property damage, and murders would be trying to eliminate the poverty sections of that city.

thanks for accepting this debate but, if there wasn't any curfew juveniles would running through these streets any time of night. and i personally think that curfew should be changed to 9:00 p.m. instead of 10:00 p.m.

Your welcome. I think you are crazy, or any for that matter, if you believe the curfew should be at 9pm. Also do you think this should be a nation thing or local decision. If you wanted it to be a nation decision it would be crazy. There isn't rampant crime in every town, suburb, or city. At best it should be a local decision. Also to put the curfew at 9:00pm you are really restricting the rights of citizens. It is reasonable to have a curfew at 12:00am or maybe even 11:00pm, but not that early. I am not sure if where you live, or the areas surrounding you have major problems, but not every town does.

forgive for not saying if its a local or nation decision. its a local decision, the reason i said that the time should be declined to nine p.m. is because the crime rate has gone up in California since the 1990's. and do u have an aim because this is taking to long. and i'm am not crazy, i just want the next generation to have a healthy community. thank you very much

AIM-Nightmare637. Since this is of a local decision I have nothing else to say, I thought originally it was a nation decision.