- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
And from that article -
According to the Conference of Mayors study, crime in most cities with curfews went down after the ordinances were imposed. Twenty-six cities with a nighttime but no daytime curfew were able to provide the relevant data; according to those figures, juvenile crime rates declined by an average of 21 percent
According to the Conference of Mayors study, crime in most cities with curfews went down after the ordinances were imposed. Twenty-six cities with a nighttime but no daytime curfew were able to provide the relevant data; according to those figures, juvenile crime rates declined by an average of 21 percent
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
Originally posted by: vi_edit
That's a daytime curfew. NONE of us in this thread have advocated day time curfews.
Is that the best you can do
the first few paragraphs refer to daytime curfews. keep reading.
Selective reading dude. Did you read right after that, when they countered that with the fact that youth crime in general has been on a decline, and cannot be attributed to the curfew? Or the part about the city with a huge increase of crime?
Next?
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
The increase in crime was really only discussed about theone city(Monrovia), and this ONLY talks about crime. It also states that it says STRICTER curfews, and not curfews themselves were found as innefective. It doesn't talk about traffic accidents and fatalities that are prevented. That's actually one of my biggest reasons for curfews - to keep the most inexperienced drivers off the road at one of the most difficult times of the day to drive.
The new driving restrictions that many states are implementing are starting to take the place of curfews though.
The new driving restrictions that many states are implementing are starting to take the place of curfews though.
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
Originally posted by: vi_edit
same exact article
uhm...did you read it?
That is why we have jr/sr liscences, at least here in PA. You cannot drive past 11pm in PA unless you have had your liscence for 1 year with no at-fault accidents. Curfew is not necassary.
Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring)
Reductio Ad Absurdum
Anyways to answer your question as I have already done, race is not as big of a factor in demographics as age is. I have said that numerous times. Let me say it again... RACE is not as much of a factor on CRIME RATES as AGE is. Therefore, I see no reason to try to make an argument with you about whether or not we should have a curfew on black people.
"Since when did the constitution say a minor has the right to move freely at any hour of the day? When does the constitution give anyone that right of any age? That doesn't mean it is just or legal to have a 24 hour curfew. Just because the constitution doesn't expressly guarantee a right doesn't mean it is just to restrict that right."
There was never a right to begin with, so how could it be restricted?
"You also seem to be missing the main point. This paper is on a law that currently exists, but is unjust. If the USSC had struck down the law, then he couldn't write on it. Any counterargument that it is just to have the law simply because the law exists cannot prove that the law itself is just."
The Supreme Court has upheld curfew laws based on age several times. Also, age is still the NUMBER 1 category in determining crime rates. The law itself is just because those who are young commit more crime than any other demographic. It has been upheld by state and federal courts. It has also been upheld in municipal criminal courts, and civil courts.
Now how would you say it is unjust? You gave a whole spiel about why my argument was flawed but you never stated why you think the law is unjust.
"The race question is completely relevant. His question is if a curfew was imposed on a different demographic group based off of statistics on that groups crime percentage, would you support it? Hardly a fallacious argument."
Oh but it is... Reductio Ad Absurdum and a Red Herring to try to focus the attention away from the age debate and onto a topic that is sure to inflame and cause people to forget what the original argument is. I have already stated that race is irrelevant because they are many more factors that are more important than race in determining what demographic(s) commit the most crime.
There was never a right to begin with, so how could it be restricted?
"You also seem to be missing the main point. This paper is on a law that currently exists, but is unjust. If the USSC had struck down the law, then he couldn't write on it. Any counterargument that it is just to have the law simply because the law exists cannot prove that the law itself is just."
The Supreme Court has upheld curfew laws based on age several times. Also, age is still the NUMBER 1 category in determining crime rates. The law itself is just because those who are young commit more crime than any other demographic. It has been upheld by state and federal courts. It has also been upheld in municipal criminal courts, and civil courts.
Now how would you say it is unjust? You gave a whole spiel about why my argument was flawed but you never stated why you think the law is unjust.
"The race question is completely relevant. His question is if a curfew was imposed on a different demographic group based off of statistics on that groups crime percentage, would you support it? Hardly a fallacious argument."
Oh but it is... Reductio Ad Absurdum and a Red Herring to try to focus the attention away from the age debate and onto a topic that is sure to inflame and cause people to forget what the original argument is. I have already stated that race is irrelevant because they are many more factors that are more important than race in determining what demographic(s) commit the most crime.
I say go for the illegal to tie horse to lamp post law. I'll tie my horse any damn way I want. . Actually, I don't think this law exists anymore.
. Actually, I don't think this law exists anymore.I think it's a good topic. I think one of your main points should be just what you pointed out, while juvenile crime DID go down as a result of the law adult crime would also go down if a similar law was enacted. Since it is "good" for children to have this law, it would be equally "good" to have one for adults. To do otherwise is pure age discrimination.
Dave
Dave
Age the biggest determing factor regarding Crime. I will be happy to post numerous UCR and NCVS reports when I get home from class.
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
genius, stop spouting that line and listen for once. Regardless of if youths commit crimes, the curfews are NOT affecting that, think about it, do you think someone who is out to commit a crime gives a sh!t if there is a curfew? The curfew is punishing the law abiding citizens for the actions of the criminals. Makes sense, doesn't it?
reductio ad absurdum is not necessary fallacious (it just happens that a lot of them are), can you show me how my argument was?
as for digression, i'm not changing the subject, nor am i trying to get us to forget about it (sorry fi you got that impression). i am merely making an analogy. you say that age discrimination is okay because age is a big factor in crime demographics. is this correct? you seem to imply this when you repeatedly say that age is a huge determining factor (and race apparently, is not), in response to my question about race as a substitute for age. it would seem that this, to you, is adequate justification for lawful discrimination (not trying to use a buzzword here, that's just what it is). it would then, reasonably follow that if another factor turned out to be larger than age, it would then be acceptable as a basis for discrimination. unless you omitted something you meant to type...
Originally posted by: Deeko
genius, stop spouting that line and listen for once. Regardless of if youths commit crimes, the curfews are NOT affecting that, think about it, do you think someone who is out to commit a crime gives a sh!t if there is a curfew? The curfew is punishing the law abiding citizens for the actions of the criminals. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Deeko you posted a link that obviously does not understand how the NCVS and UCR works. Since a new law is being enforced, those who are targeted by that law will have a higher crime rate. Simply put, they are being looked at a lot harder than the past and they will definitely be caught committing more crimes. The "study" linked by your article does not mention if the increase in crime rates was Index(Part I) or Part II crimes. Nor does it mention if curfew violations were reported as well!!! Do you not understand that? If the study focused on a certain type of crime that will increasing nationally, or was including the curfew violations as crimes, then it is invalid.
You have to recognize the many factors and trends in crime rates to determine whether or not something is just a correlation or a causation and if an enacted law is reducing crime.
Youths aged 13-17 make up 6% of the total US population. They commit 25% of all index crime arrests(the more serious offenses) and 17% of ALL crimes. The peak age for property crime is 16 and for violent crimes it is 18.
To put this in perspective, Adults 45 and Over account for 32 % of the population, and commit 7% of Index Crimes. The Elderly make up 12% of the population and commit 1% of Index Crimes.
In 1997 the Violent Crime Index per 100,000 population showed that those between the ages of 14-18 commit over 1,000 per 100,000 Violent crimes. Now compare this to those who are 20-30 and you will see it decreases from a high point of 800 at age 19 to a low of 350 by the age of 30.
Like I said and will say again, AGE is the biggest determinate of whether or not someone commits a crime.
BTW, the source for my stats is the NCVS and UCR and they were listed ion Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies. 7th Edition.
Where exactly did you get your information and what was the source?
virtuamike
Diamond Member
- Oct 13, 2000
- 7,845
- 13
- 81
i can't believe you can't comprehend this simple concept. i am giving you an (and i'll talk slowly here) e-x-a-m-p-l-e, to show you that it is not, as you seemed to imply, because age is a great determinating factor, that age is acceptable as a means of discrimination. i was attempting to do this by showing you that even if race were a great determining factor, it would still not be an acceptable means of discrimination. clearly, there is another factor, other than effectiveness, at play.
now, if i was wrong to think that you meant to imply that effectiveness is the criterea for whether or not a factor is acceptable for discriminatory purposes, i am sorry, and i would like to hear what you meant to type.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
That's why I said what I did earlier. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would never sleep and the lawsuits against police departments would bury desks if cities started ACTIVELY placing curfew like restrictions on races. Regardless of truths, it is just not possible to actively profile on race.
The same taboo's don't hold true to age.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter