Should there be a curfew for people under 18 years to reduce crime? [ENDS 28/02/10]

[Nixt]

Should there be a curfew for people under 18 years to reduce crime?

Ends 28 / 02 / 10


Crime amongst young people is becoming more and more media publicised. It is reported that children as young as 11 and 12 are out on the streets drinking and causing trouble. The question is, would introducing a curfew for for children / young adults under the age of 18 be an effective way of cutting crime?

I apologise for the lack of debates, I've had a busy couple of weeks - but we'll get back into the swing of things!

[-:Undertaker:-]

No we do not live in a police state and it is wrong to punish the majority, the reason why crime is out of control is because if one simple reason; they get away with it. If you bang those up who commit crime for real and proper sentences then perhaps we'd get somewhere but sadly this government has done the opposite and catered to the criminal, rather than the law-abiding citzen.

I am sick of it and the whole country is sick of it, but the government continues trampling on.

[Blinger1]

no, thats just stupid. Let kids have their fun. Just get heftier penalties and that'll sort the idiots out.

[Stryderman]

Yes and no.

It wouldnt make a difference in gloucester hardly anyone would stick to it and if it was enforced alot of people would just go to the park which you are easily able to run in multiple directions away from the road.

And also no because people would keep asking me to go home cos i look underage altho im not :(

[Tash.]

Two sides to this I guess. Yes on one hand because it might just make the streets a less intimidating place to be on a night. Although this does also punish those below 18 who aren't any danger to the general public and it would be too hard to make exceptions for some. On the other hand, yes youths under the age of 18 are a problem but I would say that there are those over 18 who are just as bad and dangerous, if not more so. This would not keep them off the streets. A lot of this crime is down to drugs, alcohol and gangs who just have nothing better to do than fight each other. Locking them up at home at night isn't going to help these underlying problems.

Overall, i'd say no. You can't punish the majority just because a relative minority are hell bent on causing trouble.



No we do not live in a police state and it is wrong to punish the majority, the reason why crime is out of control is because if one simple reason; they get away with it. If you bang those up who commit crime for real and proper sentences then perhaps we'd get somewhere but sadly this government has done the opposite and catered to the criminal, rather than the law-abiding citzen.

I am sick of it and the whole country is sick of it, but the government continues trampling on.

Oh gosh, not again. If you are seriously saying that we put every single youth or person who commits a crime into prison then you're more naive than I thought. Where exactly do you propose we put them? Prisons are overcrowded as it is, the government has had to make other arrangements for the people who have committed crimes that are considered to be lesser (such as ASBO's etc). Clearly they don't work but at least they tried. I know what you're response to this will be, but i'll wait anyway before I counter it.

[luce]

No. Why should the majority get punished. If people are getting away with it surely it should be the parents and authorities that are punished for not doing their jobs properly. I don't care what people say it is the parents fault for how their children turn out. I lived in a rough area for a short period of time in Dudley and i was not allowed to get involved with that, so i didn't. If the parents don't put their foot down then it's their fault for what their children do until they're 18.

hence why i believe U18s shouldn't be prosecuted - their carers and guardians should. That would make everyone think twice about whether Eastenders is really more important then raising and spending time with their kids.

@Tash ~ What i think you'll find is that if you put every single person in prison who commits a crime for a length of time over a period of about 2-3 years when people realize that they are going to be put in prison instead of "ASBO" or some other ****** up government scheme they will stop doing it all together making the prison less crowded solving two problems. Prison overcrowding and Crime. So he's no naive - just extremely intelligent and switched on to how people work.

@Hex ~ You say it wouldn't work? Well enforce it in a way that it would work. Anyone caught out when they shouldn't be will be given 400 hours of community service OR the same amount of time in prison straight. That would soon sort them out would it not? It's not saying basically "We are going to say you can't go out - but don't worry if you do we don't mind" it's a "you will not go out or you will be punished".

[Tash.]

@Tash ~ What i think you'll find is that if you put every single person in prison who commits a crime for a length of time over a period of about 2-3 years when people realize that they are going to be put in prison instead of "ASBO" or some other ****** up government scheme they will stop doing it all together making the prison less crowded solving two problems. Prison overcrowding and Crime. So he's no naive - just extremely intelligent and switched on to how people work.


The prisons are already overcrowded though, there is no space to put every teenager who commits a crime in prison.. Even less so is there space to put in prison every parent of a kid who commits a crime. Not only that but would you propose putting both parents in prison or just the 1? Because really that opens up a whole other can of worms about where you put the children while their parents are in jail. Further to this, how is it fair on the parents if they have 1 child who is causing untold problems when their other children are well behaved and do not get into trouble with the law? Because believe me that happens.

[AgnesIO]

No because more crimes are done by over 18's..

Why don't we ban all over 18's from pubs and streets after 9?

It just doesn't work.

[Technologic]

How about we stop letting the idiots under 18 who commit crime getting off scott free. Arrest them, treat them like criminals, lock them up and that'll solve your problem.

[Black_Apalachi]

The answer is yes, it probably would cut crime if it was enforced adequately. I also don't think it would really be penalising a majority because I don't really know of any reasons for people under 18 to be out on the streets at night other than to just hang round - and any groups you see doing this are more often than not causing a nuisance in some way or another anyway.

However my question is; how do you even enforce a curfew? I'm guessing it involves a lot more police patrols but I thought there was a general displeasure about the fact that you hardly ever see bobbies on the beat any more, compared to thirty or forty years ago when there would be one on every street? My point is that it will cost the government even more money to ensure there are enough patrols. As Dan said, it would be a lot easier to just enforce harsher penalties to avoid the crime in the first place.

Let's face it, all the police would do if they caught anyone is drive them home. So as there is no real risk, they're not gonna care and will probably ignore the whole curfew anyway.

[DJ-Ains.T]

A curfew won't solve things out, the children will still go out and will still cause trouble, possibly more trouble (they could rebel). And the children that don't go out, they'll stay indoors getting drunk and smoking. A curfew could even be seen as against human rights. What about if a child does loads of after school activities, gets home at 7pm and can only go out for an hour? It's taking away a childs life.

[Jordy]

While I was initially opposed to the idea, after looking into Singapore's curfew on youths after 11pm I think it's quite practical. And remember we sort of have one anyway, most if not all pubs kick youths out after 9pm.


The Singapore Police recently announced that the police may report teens under 17 years old to their parents if they are found loitering in public places after 11pm. Police will send parents letters stating when and where their children were spotted as well as the contact number of the nearest police post which parents can call for more information.Technically it's not a curfew as there's no punishment for the child or the parent, it's pretty much voluntary. It's for the childs safety as well as for everyones else bare in mind.

Some sort of system like the Singaporian system sounds practical, more here; http://thewormiepage.blogspot.com/2006/03/teen-curfew.html

[Black_Apalachi]

I'm pretty sure anything like this done on a voluntary basis will completely fail in this country.

[FlyingJesus]

Just kill everyone under 18.

Nah but I don't think a curfew would work at all - it would be expensive to set up, expensive to run and expensive to enforce the punishments, unless they were so tame no-one would care anyway. This country is too obsessed with human rights for anything like this to ever work.

[Richie]

No because that would be ageist, that's like saying should we stop children from eating sweets because it rots there teeth.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh gosh, not again. If you are seriously saying that we put every single youth or person who commits a crime into prison then you're more naive than I thought. Where exactly do you propose we put them? Prisons are overcrowded as it is, the government has had to make other arrangements for the people who have committed crimes that are considered to be lesser (such as ASBO's etc). Clearly they don't work but at least they tried. I know what you're response to this will be, but i'll wait anyway before I counter it.

Where did I say lets put every youth in prison who commits a crime? - its a tad bit obvious to me and the majority of people, put the persistent offenders away who are the cause of the problem. What would you and the Labour Party prefer, that we 'connect with our youth' - what a load of old tripe lets be honest with ourselves which doesnt work at all along with ASBOS and the rest of it; some of these kids are problem kids and need a hard long spell in prison to set them straight. The parents need to stop being blamed and the kids take responsibility for themselves, if you commit a crime you do the time and its as simple as that.


The prisons are already overcrowded though, there is no space to put every teenager who commits a crime in prison.. Even less so is there space to put in prison every parent of a kid who commits a crime. Not only that but would you propose putting both parents in prison or just the 1? Because really that opens up a whole other can of worms about where you put the children while their parents are in jail. Further to this, how is it fair on the parents if they have 1 child who is causing untold problems when their other children are well behaved and do not get into trouble with the law? Because believe me that happens.

..and the simple solution that you are missing and that this government is missing is; BUILD MORE PRISONS.

[Alkaz]

There are some young people who are out till god knows when but for the majority of us we are hardly out to them silly hours of the night. Sometimes I like to go out for a drive or w.e or if I need something Ill nip to the supermarket but if there is a curfew then I wouldnt be able to do that. So for the minority would be ruining it for the majority, yet again. I say no keep it like it is now.

[Jahova]

No we do not live in a police state and it is wrong to punish the majority, the reason why crime is out of control is because if one simple reason; they get away with it. If you bang those up who commit crime for real and proper sentences then perhaps we'd get somewhere but sadly this government has done the opposite and catered to the criminal, rather than the law-abiding citzen.

I am sick of it and the whole country is sick of it, but the government continues trampling on.
Agree completely. Pretty much answered it for me.

[Smits]

it might cut crime, but it's a stupid idea.

It would be completely wrong and out of order to punish everyone.

It would also be impossible to enforce

[Grig]

I feel this should be the last solution. There needs to be other action taken as to how they get possesion of alcohol and knives etc. However, I myself know this has been debated and that they would still find a way to get these things. This sounds however, like a very dictatorial measure, and as some have mentioned will make the majority suffer, over the wrong doings of a minority.

I think the solution is harsher punishments for all those who are causing trouble. The government needs to send a clear message to everyone doing so. For sure, using such rash measures is not the solution.

[Tash.]

..and the simple solution that you are missing and that this government is missing is; BUILD MORE PRISONS.

Ok, where? You don't have much faith in human intelligence if you don't think that highly educated people such as the people who are in charge of this country haven't thought of that. It's not as simple as "oh, we need new prisons. Okay, here we'll build one for you." And you know it. You claim to be a boffin on all things political and economical to do with this country yet you haven't seemed to notice the blatantly obvious. We do not have the money nor the resources, nor the space to go building prisons willy nilly. These things take years to consult about nevermind build.

[luce]

The prisons are already overcrowded though, there is no space to put every teenager who commits a crime in prison.. Even less so is there space to put in prison every parent of a kid who commits a crime. Not only that but would you propose putting both parents in prison or just the 1? Because really that opens up a whole other can of worms about where you put the children while their parents are in jail. Further to this, how is it fair on the parents if they have 1 child who is causing untold problems when their other children are well behaved and do not get into trouble with the law? Because believe me that happens.

Yes i know the prisons are overcrowded HOWEVER everyone gets out sometime? (well most people with this **** "life" policy we have) So when we implement this we will have a stage where the prison will be massively over crowded BUT when people realize that they will go to prison for doing that petit crime then they won't so less people will be going in so it will end up being more going out then coming in instead of the other way around hence solving the overcrowding problem.

On the point you made about the "one bad child" well if you have one bad child who you need help with or have fears about then send them to a hospital for help? Or something like that it's the responsibility of that parent to deal with it and not just say OH MY CHILD IS BAD, DAM! You know common sense?

And the point you made about which parent and who do you put in well i believe that no one will commit crime so there will be no need to use it. I know what i just said was idealistic and there is a flaw there but if you want to implement a parent punishment system ranging from a fine, their benefits cut, or prison then it would stop.


Ok, where? You don't have much faith in human intelligence if you don't think that highly educated people such as the people who are in charge of this country haven't thought of that. It's not as simple as "oh, we need new prisons. Okay, here we'll build one for you." And you know it. You claim to be a boffin on all things political and economical to do with this country yet you haven't seemed to notice the blatantly obvious. We do not have the money nor the resources, nor the space to go building prisons willy nilly. These things take years to consult about nevermind build.

they may be highly educated but the government leading the UK at the moment are in no way what so ever highly intelligent. Otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.

What you could always do is what we used to do and send everyone to one country like Australia..

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ok, where? You don't have much faith in human intelligence if you don't think that highly educated people such as the people who are in charge of this country haven't thought of that. It's not as simple as "oh, we need new prisons. Okay, here we'll build one for you." And you know it. You claim to be a boffin on all things political and economical to do with this country yet you haven't seemed to notice the blatantly obvious. We do not have the money nor the resources, nor the space to go building prisons willy nilly. These things take years to consult about nevermind build.

Oh you'd think that wouldn't you because the job of a government is to build and manage resources properly as its number one job is to protect its people. However Labour have now been in office since 1997 Tash and the excuses for lack of time therefore do not stand.

Meanwhile you say the budget, if we do not have the money is that why Labour paid for a prison to be built in Nigeria? - is that why Labour have ballooned public sector spending? - is that why Labour signed away our rebate to the European Union? - is that why Labour continue to give millions to Zimbabwe, India, China and others?. Do not tell the British taxpayer that you cannot build prisons because 'we dont have the money' because quite honestly you are treating us like fools if you do so.

To anyone reading this, Tash says we cannot afford to build prisons here;- i'd suggest anyone to just take a look here before they believe a single word of it (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198401/Britain-build-3m-jail-Nigeria-400-prisoners-serving-sentences-here.html).

[Metric1]

No, curfews are DUMB.

[ifuseekamy]

Just turn young offender prisons into real prisons. If kids wanna be treated like adults then they can be punished like adults. Give people the right to protect themselves too.

[AgnesIO]

A place near me has a curfew on people going out after 10pm (teenagers). I can honestly say it has NOT worked. More people go out after 10 just to be even 'cooler'.

They have also banned groups of teens with more than 3 people. That has helped.

[Niall!]

Yeah, only those who own a burberry cap and wear tracksuits all the time.

[AgnesIO]

Yeah, only those who own a burberry cap and wear tracksuits all the time.

Which for the place I am talking about it pretty much it haha

[Tash.]

Yes i know the prisons are overcrowded HOWEVER everyone gets out sometime? (well most people with this **** "life" policy we have) So when we implement this we will have a stage where the prison will be massively over crowded BUT when people realize that they will go to prison for doing that petit crime then they won't so less people will be going in so it will end up being more going out then coming in instead of the other way around hence solving the overcrowding problem.

On the point you made about the "one bad child" well if you have one bad child who you need help with or have fears about then send them to a hospital for help? Or something like that it's the responsibility of that parent to deal with it and not just say OH MY CHILD IS BAD, DAM! You know common sense?

And the point you made about which parent and who do you put in well i believe that no one will commit crime so there will be no need to use it. I know what i just said was idealistic and there is a flaw there but if you want to implement a parent punishment system ranging from a fine, their benefits cut, or prison then it would stop.

they may be highly educated but the government leading the UK at the moment are in no way what so ever highly intelligent. Otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess.

What you could always do is what we used to do and send everyone to one country like Australia..

Sorry but your logic is flawed. We've got to the stage in society where people have no fear of the consequences, no matter what they are.. prison or no prison. So no, the prisons will continue to be overcrowded and then people will begin moaning because they are either a) not sticking to it/being consistent or b) letting people off for other crimes to fill prisons with people who graffiti and are generally anti-social. Prison is not the answer for everything and to be frank, some people really could not care less if they go to prison or not. It just makes them cooler in their eyes.

You propose sending the bad child "to hospital"? For what purpose.. these people are not ill, they've just had something either go wrong in their lives which has led them down the wrong path or they are trouble makers in general. Even then, you can't just "send people to hospital" the world does not work like that :S I know of law abiding, respectable people who have 2 or 3 children. 2 of the children are well behaved and get good grades, the other doesn't attend school and is generally unruly. This might lead on to that kid comitting illegal offences such as being anti-social as it often leads on to this. These parents have done everything they can think of, contacted the relevant people and yet still the child is no better. So, if one day that child did commit an offence which you say should be punished by the parents going to prison, why is that fair? They've done everything within their power, and yet still they are punished? No. Talk about unjust.

As for what you wrote about you not believing that anyone will commit the crime because they don't want their parents going to prison or the parents will do more, i'm sorry but that is very very naive. As with my story above, you could fine them, take away any benefits they happen to be on and it would not help one jot. That kid does not have any care in the world as to what happens, and there are more than just him. Idealism sounds very good in principle, does not work in the real world i'm afraid because you are assuming these people who commit these offences actually have a conscience. A great number of them don't and they don't care what happens to them or anyone they might happen to be associated with.



Oh you'd think that wouldn't you because the job of a government is to build and manage resources properly as its number one job is to protect its people. However Labour have now been in office since 1997 Tash and the excuses for lack of time therefore do not stand.

Meanwhile you say the budget, if we do not have the money is that why Labour paid for a prison to be built in Nigeria? - is that why Labour have ballooned public sector spending? - is that why Labour signed away our rebate to the European Union? - is that why Labour continue to give millions to Zimbabwe, India, China and others?. Do not tell the British taxpayer that you cannot build prisons because 'we dont have the money' because quite honestly you are treating us like fools if you do so.

To anyone reading this, Tash says we cannot afford to build prisons here;- i'd suggest anyone to just take a look here before they believe a single word of it (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198401/Britain-build-3m-jail-Nigeria-400-prisoners-serving-sentences-here.html).

I see we're back to ignoring the key part of my post. There is no space. I even heard of plans for prison ships, thats how much of a problem with space there is. I aren't getting into any arguments about government spending in this thread as it's just not relevant and you don't want to hear what I have to say anyway, your mind is set on this government being near criminals.

At the link you provided, that is £1 million, you know and I know that building any type of prison here would cost a whole lot more than that and it's also been done to rid our prisons of criminals from abroad. Unforunately, the Daily Mail has twisted this into being something bad, I aren't shocked by this in the slightest.

[Smits]

Well, i look around and see plenty of derelict buildings and old factories which have been no use to anyone for some time. Not only that, but i see acres of free land everytime i go outside. So i think there deffinately IS space for more prisons.

Of course, you can't just build one anywhere and theres always going to be people who object. But there is deffinately room. If there isn't, there would be the option of building upwards instead, building outside of the UK, and of course, building ships (which i've heard is being done).

I'm not saying prison is the solution, as i believe reforming people is the way forward and petty criminals should be kept out of jail. Criminals such as vandals, graffiti artists, litter bugs and so on.

ultimately though, a curfew on under 18s wold not work.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I see we're back to ignoring the key part of my post. There is no space. I even heard of plans for prison ships, thats how much of a problem with space there is. I aren't getting into any arguments about government spending in this thread as it's just not relevant and you don't want to hear what I have to say anyway, your mind is set on this government being near criminals.

At the link you provided, that is £1 million, you know and I know that building any type of prison here would cost a whole lot more than that and it's also been done to rid our prisons of criminals from abroad. Unforunately, the Daily Mail has twisted this into being something bad, I aren't shocked by this in the slightest.

Hang on a minute, you were the one who brought up the issue of money & government spending, not me. I said build more prisons and one of the reasons you came back with for not building more prisons was that the government had no money despite the fact i've given many examples in my previous post on how much money this government has wasted and is still wasting. No space? - hang on, if theres really no space left then why are we allowing unlimited immigration of which you support from what I remember but we cant build prisons - erm hello I think theres a big problem there because simple mathematics says; more people = more criminals = more prisons needed.

We have plenty of land, where would I propose to build them? - brownfield sites.

Of course it would cost a lot more than that - and thats why we have a strategy in money & finance called cutting, saving and prioritising. That is exactly why I gave numerous other examples of how money could easily be saved to fund building prisons. The Daily Mail hasn't twisted it into anything, why should we pay for a prison in Nigeria? - send them back and send them back to Nigerian prisons in which they belong. Meanwhile build prisons here with our tax money for our criminals and then maybe we'd get somewhere.

On the issue of space for these prisons again, if the government are considering building ships then why the hell have they not started? - they have been in government now since 1997 that is 13 years in office and still they have not done anything. They are a complete shambles and instead of admitting that, you continue to stick by tribal politics and make excuses left, right and centre for them.

[DrLacero]

In my opinion, yes.

Kids these days have no respect, screw their rights.

[AgnesIO]

In my opinion, yes.

Kids these days have no respect, screw their rights.

How old are you?

Kds have no less respect than 15 years ago.. And if you are over 18 it is YOUR fault. I mean someone must have taught us this, so surely it is the adults fault?

[lazerman]

I might seem to get off topic here but,

If adults were to blame, then say for instance I had a daughter and my and my wife were very good parents, and suddenly our daughter turned 'sketty' or 'slaggy' and always ended up going out and doing things with boys. Who would you blame? The parents who tried growing her up all these years?

Parents are the ones not to blame, kids our age, we do different things because of different factors that happen in our life. So before pointing the blame on adults on how kids affect us, look outside the box. The media since the 1980's has always been something in the sexual desires, therefore growing in to a huge fashion now of sexual stuffffff.

Sorry, I went off topic but I hope you get my understanding of what I was trying to say.

[DrLacero]

How old are you?

Kds have no less respect than 15 years ago.. And if you are over 18 it is YOUR fault. I mean someone must have taught us this, so surely it is the adults fault?

18. I lived in London 15 years ago, and the kids there did have more respect.

And no, it's not the adult's fault. Kids rebel (or reject their socialisation to my fellow sociologists) and ignore what they've been taught.

Yesterday afternoon while on the public bus to uni, a group of teens were heckling an elderly women with some really foul insults. I would never have done that, and if they were my kids I they wouldn't see the outside world for weeks.

[FlyingJesus]

I see we're back to ignoring the key part of my post. There is no space.

Pretty sure any time I drive more than 20 miles out of town I'm going through a load of dead space, a lot of which seemingly can't even be used for crops and constantly has "for sale" signs up all over it.


How old are you?

Kds have no less respect than 15 years ago.. And if you are over 18 it is YOUR fault. I mean someone must have taught us this, so surely it is the adults fault?

Kids teach kids. I didn't learn to swear and fight from my parents, it was the playgrounds from as young as 6. When I had my first cigarette it wasn't my dad giving me it, it was that friend of a friend who nicked them from the corner shop. If you honestly believe that kids can't pick up bad habits without adults teaching it to them then you should be entirely in favour of this idea because you clearly think young people are so malleable and controllable as to simply solve all of their problems by keeping them locked up.

As for respect, there is a definite difference between now and 15 years ago, and it's utterly ridiculous to think otherwise.

[AgnesIO]

My parents taught me not to go around shouting abuse at any random person, they taught me not to go around stabbing people or breaking into places. My mates didn't teach me not to do that.

Many thugs in the world get their attitudes because their parents had been ****,

[Catzsy]

Statistics show that it is only a small minority of people who are responsible for most of the crime so a curfew is wrong.

What should be tackled is why this small minority commit these crimes which about 90% are fuelled by alcohol and drug taking.

Personally I would like to see drugs de-criminalised and available on prescription so there would be no need for drug dealers or crime and what they do to their own bodies is their own responsibility.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Statistics show that it is only a small minority of people who are responsible for most of the crime so a curfew is wrong.

What should be tackled is why this small minority commit these crimes which about 90% are fuelled by alcohol and drug taking.

Personally I would like to see drugs de-criminalised and available on prescription so there would be no need for drug dealers or crime and what they do to their own bodies is their own responsibility.

Would these drugs cost the taxpayer anything? - if so, then why should the state fund peoples dirty habits?

If these did cost on prescription, the likelyhood is that the amount you could get would not be enough and drug dealers would most likely to be able to undercut the price that the chemist is selling them for. More to the point, in bars, parties and clubs most people will take it as a spare of the moment thing so drug dealers will still have plenty of business to keep themselves afloat.

[Catzsy]

Would these drugs cost the taxpayer anything? - if so, then why should the state fund peoples dirty habits?

If these did cost on prescription, the likelyhood is that the amount you could get would not be enough and drug dealers would most likely to be able to undercut the price that the chemist is selling them for. More to the point, in bars, parties and clubs most people will take it as a spare of the moment thing so drug dealers will still have plenty of business to keep themselves afloat.

Dan, the taxpayers fund far more for these people at the moment - think of all the costs of law proceedings & police and hospital man hours connected to these people. It would cost the country a lot less.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dan, the taxpayers fund far more for these people at the moment - think of all the costs of law proceedings & police and hospital man hours connected to these people. It would cost the country a lot less.

The only thing the taxpayer should be funding for these people at the moment is a jail cell. Why should my family and other families around the country work to pay for these dirty habits of people, especially when the fact I brought up that drug dealers would still be active and making a profit so in essence; it wouldnt make one bit of difference - just add to our state bill and de-criminalise drugs even futher making them more and more attractive to younger kids.

If you want to pay for these people then by all means, donate to clinics who 'look after them' and 'help them' get off their dirty habits, but the rest of us have no interest in funding these people - most of whom are rotten-to-the-core, theiving scumbag criminals who cant differ between their right and left hand and wouldnt know what time of the year it is if you shoved a calender under their face.

[Inseriousity.]

Jails don't work. Prison just sticks a plaster over the problem and hope that when they pull it off, the wound's gone. Sometimes it works, most of the time it doesn't. So no, building more prisons and whatnot will not solve crime in the long run. I think it's over half of offenders re-offend after release from prison.

A curfew is a rather silly idea imo. The majority of teenagers are law-abiding citizens and I wish the government would acknowledge that rather than punishing us all as that just causes more frustration. Instead, to reduce youth crime, they need to actually TALK to these young people, see if there's a common factor as to why they committed the crime and fight that rather than enforce a curfew.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Jails don't work. Prison just sticks a plaster over the problem and hope that when they pull it off, the wound's gone. Sometimes it works, most of the time it doesn't. So no, building more prisons and whatnot will not solve crime in the long run. I think it's over half of offenders re-offend after release from prison.

A curfew is a rather silly idea imo. The majority of teenagers are law-abiding citizens and I wish the government would acknowledge that rather than punishing us all as that just causes more frustration. Instead, to reduce youth crime, they need to actually TALK to these young people, see if there's a common factor as to why they committed the crime and fight that rather than enforce a curfew.

The idea of prison is to protect people from those who are dangerous, therefore prison does work. If they re-offend after they are let out of prison, dont let them out in the first place. You know, you hear these stories of murderers being let out and going on to kill more people - why on earth were they let out in the first place?

Kids commit crime because they want to, they dont need the government to patronise them and give them more play parks to vandalise - at the end of the day its your choice, and by doing so you agree to the saying 'commit the crime, you do the time' - simple as that really, people need to start taking some responsbility for once instead of blaming everyone and everything but themselves.

[Inseriousity.]

The idea of prison is to protect people from those who are dangerous, therefore prison does work. If they re-offend after they are let out of prison, dont let them out in the first place. You know, you hear these stories of murderers being let out and going on to kill more people - why on earth were they let out in the first place?

Kids commit crime because they want to, they dont need the government to patronise them and give them more play parks to vandalise - at the end of the day its your choice, and by doing so you agree to the saying 'commit the crime, you do the time' - simple as that really, people need to start taking some responsbility for once instead of blaming everyone and everything but themselves.

hmm well as a determinist, I'd disagree with that but that's a whole different debate, which takes a long time to argue about :P

Prisons have 4 functions:

Protect the public. Do they really protect the public if all they're going to do is re-offend when they get out? And just saying "well don't let them out" is absurd too. not all prisoners are murderers, can't keep them ALL in there forever or it'd greatly dilute the point of the criminal justice system. "Oh if Im gonna get jailed same amount of time for vandalising this street and murdering someone... hmmm...."

Punish criminal behaviour. Okay fair point, they do this. :)

Reform criminals - Here lies the problem. Giving them academic achievements in the hope of them turning their lives around doesn't work! They need to find out why their lives ended up on the wrong track in the first place before they can help!

Deter people from crime. The majority of citizens are law-abiding so I'd say this isn't much of a problem although is it really because of the prison system or more because of society's influence on us?

Back to the debate in hand then, the curfew would also not reform criminals as like prisons, they would be sticking a plaster over the problem and hoping it goes away next time they look.

[-:Undertaker:-]

hmm well as a determinist, I'd disagree with that but that's a whole different debate, which takes a long time to argue about :P

Prisons have 4 functions:

Protect the public. Do they really protect the public if all they're going to do is re-offend when they get out? And just saying "well don't let them out" is absurd too. not all prisoners are murderers, can't keep them ALL in there forever or it'd greatly dilute the point of the criminal justice system. "Oh if Im gonna get jailed same amount of time for vandalising this street and murdering someone... hmmm...."

Punish criminal behaviour. Okay fair point, they do this. :)

Reform criminals - Here lies the problem. Giving them academic achievements in the hope of them turning their lives around doesn't work! They need to find out why their lives ended up on the wrong track in the first place before they can help!

Deter people from crime. The majority of citizens are law-abiding so I'd say this isn't much of a problem although is it really because of the prison system or more because of society's influence on us?

Back to the debate in hand then, the curfew would also not reform criminals as like prisons, they would be sticking a plaster over the problem and hoping it goes away next time they look.

Why would we want to reform them? - you cant reform someone like Ian Huntley and most criminals are unreformable - a leopard rarely changes its spots. It is their choice to reform at the end of the day, and if they show no hope of reform them quite simply do not let them out.

If you let criminals out based on the very vague hope that you have reformed them then you are putting people at immense danger and thats not acceptable.

[Inseriousity.]

Why would we want to reform them? - you cant reform someone like Ian Huntley and most criminals are unreformable - a leopard rarely changes its spots. It is their choice to reform at the end of the day, and if they show no hope of reform them quite simply do not let them out.

If you let criminals out based on the very vague hope that you have reformed them then you are putting people at immense danger and thats not acceptable.

Are you comparing murderers to young people? It makes no sense. As for reforming murderers, yes, it is almost impossible to reform them but you can talk to them and maybe find a reason why they committed that crime and then try to prevent others from having that reason.

If you want to reduce crime, stop locking people up and hoping the problem goes away because it doesn't work! You can't compare young people to murderers and keep them all in prison for an indefinite period of time because the crimes of a young person are weak compared to those of a murderer.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Are you comparing murderers to young people? It makes no sense. As for reforming murderers, yes, it is almost impossible to reform them but you can talk to them and maybe find a reason why they committed that crime and then try to prevent others from having that reason.

If you want to reduce crime, stop locking people up and hoping the problem goes away because it doesn't work! You can't compare young people to murderers and keep them all in prison for an indefinite period of time because the crimes of a young person are weak compared to those of a murderer.

Both, you say you support reform. The problem does go away though, because it makes people think twice before they commit a crime if their mate is in prison and secondly, it prevents the crime. So instead of having 10 criminals on the loose, you may only have 1 or two - thus a reduction in crime.

Of course, and for younger criminals such as petty crime and so forth, a short spell in prison for their first offences may teach them a lesson. If not, put them in for a much longer period. If still not reformed, put them in for a very long time until they show some signs of a change - and until they do, do not allow them out.

Prison works, its liberal policies like 'lets talk to them' & 'aww lets pander to them' like you are suggesting that results in people having no respect for the police and no respect for the law. It results in a worsening of offenders because feel they can get away with it, and ultimately it results in death and violence.

[Black_Apalachi]

Statistics show that it is only a small minority of people who are responsible for most of the crime so a curfew is wrong. ...

Yeah but how many of the kids out late at night hanging round on street corners do you think aren't being rowdy, drinking alcohol or causing trouble one way or another? It's not as if the kind of people who spend their nights outside are innocent little choir boys.

[GommeInc]

Won't solve much, and alot of damage to private and public property is done by other, older people :/ It's assuming that all under 18s are evil beggars, when it's just a minority who do.

[Swastika]

No, this is England NOT North Korea.
Its the governments fault teenagers are going outside and causing mayhem and drinking underage. I personally think there isnt enough things to do for children/teenagers to do in the area, so i can understand why some turn to petty crime out of pure boredum.
Crime is the governments problem to sort out, and setting a curfew to under 18s is a big step in the wrong direction, making innocent kids stay in because of the minority wont go down well with the country's people.

[Catzsy]

The only thing the taxpayer should be funding for these people at the moment is a jail cell. Why should my family and other families around the country work to pay for these dirty habits of people, especially when the fact I brought up that drug dealers would still be active and making a profit so in essence; it wouldnt make one bit of difference - just add to our state bill and de-criminalise drugs even futher making them more and more attractive to younger kids.

If you want to pay for these people then by all means, donate to clinics who 'look after them' and 'help them' get off their dirty habits, but the rest of us have no interest in funding these people - most of whom are rotten-to-the-core, theiving scumbag criminals who cant differ between their right and left hand and wouldnt know what time of the year it is if you shoved a calender under their face.


The problem is ,Dan, that very few actually go to jail. It is just an alternative
way of looking at things that's all as nothing seems to be working now.
Hypothetically there would be no need for 'drug dealers' if it was to be had on prescription and there would be no need for them. Also you can't really talk for the rest of the world. Who is the rest of us? This is just my opinion
and it is a theory being considered by many academics. If one wants to spend even more tax on trying to contain these people from blighting the life of the majority of citizens in this country then fine but I see it as a way of making the 'taking of drugs' less 'cool' - the drug dealers make their money by maing sure they get repeat business which means they encourage youngsters to take them. De-criminalising does not make it legal and some already get methodone on prescription. I cannot see anybody coming into power and building more prisons as it doesn't solve anything except to get them off the streets for a short time and come back and start again. Maybe a radical re-think is what is necessary. What I do think is that we have gone too far in this country particuarly in the Social worker area in accepting excuses for their behaviour for which only they are responsible for.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The problem is ,Dan, that very few actually go to jail. It is just an alternative
way of looking at things that's all as nothing seems to be working now.
Hypothetically there would be no need for 'drug dealers' if it was to be had on prescription and there would be no need for them. Also you can't really talk for the rest of the world. Who is the rest of us? This is just my opinion
and it is a theory being considered by many academics. If one wants to spend even more tax on trying to contain these people from blighting the life of the majority of citizens in this country then fine but I see it as a way of making the 'taking of drugs' less 'cool' - the drug dealers make their money by maing sure they get repeat business which means they encourage youngsters to take them. De-criminalising does not make it legal and some already get methodone on prescription. I cannot see anybody coming into power and building more prisons as it doesn't solve anything except to get them off the streets for a short time and come back and start again. Maybe a radical re-think is what is necessary. What I do think is that we have gone too far in this country particuarly in the Social worker area in accepting excuses for their behaviour for which only they are responsible for.

Of course few people go to jail, just another one of the reasons why I think this government is totally out of touch and rivals the Callaghan government on the 1970s in terms of being out of touch and totally useless. Kids dont take drugs to look cool, kids take drugs to get high while in parties and some get addicted - I dont see why just because some 'experts' and the government say so, that the taxpayer of this country aka the rest of us should pay for their dirty habits.

I agree on last bit, so dont play to them and pander their needs - punish them and try with all your effort to stamp it out. Its unbeatable at the end of the day, but aslong as you can tackle the problem it makes it worthwhile. Instead of paying for the bag heads to sit around and smoke pot all day (by paying their benefits & drugs as you suggest) how about cutting both? - and that'll also hit the drug dealers.

They only have the money to buy drugs because a lot dont work and are on benefits, cut their benefits and what will they do?

[Inseriousity.]

They only have the money to buy drugs because a lot dont work and are on benefits, cut their benefits and what will they do?

Steal, make money through illegal means = crime.

Lock someone up for a year, they come out and may re-offend. Lock them up for two years, they come out and may re-offend. It's not really length of time in prison that stops people committing crime, it's what you do with them while they're in there.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Steal, make money through illegal means = crime.

Lock someone up for a year, they come out and may re-offend. Lock them up for two years, they come out and may re-offend. It's not really length of time in prison that stops people committing crime, it's what you do with them while they're in there.

If they continue to commit crime then do not let them out, very simple. Their choice to commit crime, nobody makes them and ultimately nobody can change them.

[Inseriousity.]

If they continue to commit crime then do not let them out, very simple. Their choice to commit crime, nobody makes them and ultimately nobody can change them.

There's no such thing as choice (maybe that can be the next debate ;))
People are pressured into certain situations, including crime, maybe because of their financial status, their age etc. Take away the pressure and you'll reduce crime. The unfortunate thing about this idea, I'll admit it, is that it's a very long-term solution and unfortunately, people expect instant results from governments. Instead they spend money into schemes that don't work because they don't understand the pressures that force these people into crime. If the public would be patient (which would never happen with the media), they may actually see a reduction in crime rate but as I say, this will never happen + therefore we will never see the benefits of this system.

[FlyingJesus]

On the drugs issue: prescription cough medicines, nos capsules and mephedrone are legal but still obtained for a large part through drug dealers because they can get it in bulk and sell it cheaper than normal sources. As for "They only have the money to buy drugs because a lot dont work and are on benefits" I only know of one or maybe two people who take drugs a lot and are unemployed on benefits, and as we're talking about under 18s in this thread I don't think the benefits system is applicable anyway.

Check me out disagreeing with both sides of the argument

[-:Undertaker:-]

There's no such thing as choice (maybe that can be the next debate ;))
People are pressured into certain situations, including crime, maybe because of their financial status, their age etc. Take away the pressure and you'll reduce crime. The unfortunate thing about this idea, I'll admit it, is that it's a very long-term solution and unfortunately, people expect instant results from governments. Instead they spend money into schemes that don't work because they don't understand the pressures that force these people into crime. If the public would be patient (which would never happen with the media), they may actually see a reduction in crime rate but as I say, this will never happen + therefore we will never see the benefits of this system.

No people commit crime because they want something, they know its wrong and think they can get away with it; which a lot of the time sadly they do. A theft for example "I want that TV" and they'll take it. That is how a criminal works, theres no such thing as all this pandering around it like "oh I took drugs because I was under pressure from my friends" or "I stole the TV because I owe £100 to my mate" - you know at the end of the day its your choice if you want to steal/take drugs and you should deal with the consquences. It seems to be the new trend these days that people do things because they are 'depressed' or under 'pressure'.

People need to learn to take responsibility for themselves and stop blaming everyone and everything else.

[Inseriousity.]

No people commit crime because they want something, they know its wrong and think they can get away with it; which a lot of the time sadly they do. A theft for example "I want that TV" and they'll take it. That is how a criminal works, theres no such thing as all this pandering around it like "oh I took drugs because I was under pressure from my friends" or "I stole the TV because I owe £100 to my mate" - you know at the end of the day its your choice if you want to steal/take drugs and you should deal with the consquences. It seems to be the new trend these days that people do things because they are 'depressed' or under 'pressure'.

People need to learn to take responsibility for themselves and stop blaming everyone and everything else.

I am very pleased that you have a full understanding in the criminal mind but it's very narrow-minded to assume that they all go for the same reason of wanting something because that would eliminate all non-money related crimes e.g graffiti.

What needs to be done is finding out why they still do it even though they think it's wrong because, believe it or not, criminals are actually human and therefore will have human reasoning behind it. Find the reasons, get rid of the reasons = decreasing the crime rate.

Lock criminals in prison indefinitely if possible = not finding the cause = not getting rid of the cause = not decreasing the crime rate.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I am very pleased that you have a full understanding in the criminal mind but it's very narrow-minded to assume that they all go for the same reason of wanting something because that would eliminate all non-money related crimes e.g graffiti.

What needs to be done is finding out why they still do it even though they think it's wrong because, believe it or not, criminals are actually human and therefore will have human reasoning behind it. Find the reasons, get rid of the reasons = decreasing the crime rate.

Lock criminals in prison indefinitely if possible = not finding the cause = not getting rid of the cause = not decreasing the crime rate.

There are a lot of things that aren't right in everyones lives; some people are in terrible situations, unemployed and about to lose their house - it doesnt mean they go out and rob like others do. The same with other things, the majority of us dont rob/commit crime so why is it an excuse for others to be able to?

[Inseriousity.]

There are a lot of things that aren't right in everyones lives; some people are in terrible situations, unemployed and about to lose their house - it doesnt mean they go out and rob like others do. The same with other things, the majority of us dont rob/commit crime so why is it an excuse for others to be able to?

Exactly which means there has to be something else in the criminal's life that makes them commit crime and if we found this, we can find solutions to stop this. Possibly, living in a zone of transition, family values different to the majority etc etc.

The problem is this government is under pressure from the public (understandably so when the media constantly sensationalises crime) to get fast results and so when looking for these causes, it's done very quickly and very inefficient to actually produce any validity, which means that money is wasted on these 'schemes' to try to stop criminals offending but it's wasted in all the wrong places so it just looks like this 'liberal' view as you put it is a waste of money and time.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Exactly which means there has to be something else in the criminal's life that makes them commit crime and if we found this, we can find solutions to stop this. Possibly, living in a zone of transition, family values different to the majority etc etc.

The problem is this government is under pressure from the public (understandably so when the media constantly sensationalises crime) to get fast results and so when looking for these causes, it's done very quickly and very inefficient to actually produce any validity, which means that money is wasted on these 'schemes' to try to stop criminals offending but it's wasted in all the wrong places so it just looks like this 'liberal' view as you put it is a waste of money and time.

Government cannot control what goes on in the family and it has no place in it either. Crime will always be here its a fact of life and we need to accept it, that doesnt mean we shouldnt lock up dangerous people/people who ruin others lives through crime.

The media may sensationalise some stories, but the majority of stories now are getting lets be honest.. stupid. People are being allowed out or not even going in for crimes which deserve a sentence/life sentence. All most people want is for the government to lock these people up and protect us all - thats the job of a government. But as i've said in past and ties into the liberal part; we are ruled by a liberal elite who put the rights of the criminals first and the victims second.

[Wig44.]

No, harsher treatments for the criminals, teach the bugger some manners.