Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Juvenile delinquency and crime
Juvenile curfew law essay
Juvenile delinquency and crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Juvenile delinquency and crime
When you hear politicians and police talking about getting tough on "juvenile crime," you may imagine a school shooting, like those that have occurred in Jonesboro, Arkansas, and Springfield Oregon. Others may recall TV clips of young people, sometimes covered by masks or paper bags to hide their identities, being dragged away in handcuffs, as the television speaks of charges ranging from rape to robbery. But in America today, more kids are arrested for curfew law violations then any other single category of crime, including all violent crimes combined. Everyone from law enforcement to the President have endorsed tougher curfew laws as being the solution to America's crime woes, though none have ever cited real data to prove that sending over a hundred thousand kids through the justice system for being out too late each year reduces crime. They assume that anything that takes kids off the streets must reduce crime.
There is no justification to juvenile curfews (which may explain why the Supreme Court did not write an opinion on the matter). Restricting an American's freedom of movement is an obvious trespass over the First Amendment, and to stroll around a park or public square is hardly the "clear and present danger" to the community usually required for such an infringement. Today, it seems as if the laws are making it a crime to be young. Curfew laws infringe on the rights of all people, specifically honing in on the youth. Generally, they should move around without interference from authorities unless and until they are actually doing something unlawful. But a city mayor or councilman has no need for such rhetoric. Why worry about the First Amendment when one can claim to be reducing the crime rate, yet affect no voters?
A majority of the major cities have a nighttime youth curfew, and a small percent of these cities also post a daytime curfew. It's thought that enforcing this law is a productive use of a police officer's time. Many say curfews give police time to focus on older criminals, since the so-called juvenile delinquents will now be off the streets.
However, many also think that curfew enforcement is not the best use of an officer's time. Some cities complain that curfews increase the amount of paperwork they must process. And some noted there is nowhere to take juvenile violators if their parents aren't home.
In regards to recommending if the policy should be extended to areas outside of Northbridge, I believe that unless there is a significant amount of research placed on the specific areas which are believed to need a curfew, then yes, it should be extended. Despite this though, from the research above, showing that there was a drop in the amount of people apprehended, it was set out on a specific racial group, from low socio-economic areas, and not areas in which middle class people reside, as it is usually believed that people from low socio-economic background are more commonly at a higher risk of crime than that of middle class.
Within the last five years, violent offenses by children have increased 68 percent, crimes such as: murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Honestly, with these figures, it is not surprising at all that the Juveniles Courts focus less on the children in danger, and focus more on dangerous children. This in fact is most likely the underlying reasoning behind juveniles being tried as adults by imposing harsher and stiffer sentences. However, these policies fail to recognize the developmental differences between young people and
Studies and anecdotes have shown that our modern approach, however, is ill-equipped to reduce crime or deal with chronic delinquents while at the same time protecting their due liberties. We now stand on the precipice of decision: How can we strike an appropriate balance in the juvenile justice system? Should we even retain a separate system for children at all? The answers are usually difficult, sometimes subtle, but always possible to attain.
It is a serious waste of tax funds and waste extremely precious time which can never be regained. Unless parents teachers and the country start seeing these problems with shootings and gangs. in high school are all due to the fact that the most basic concept every teen knows about “everyone for their selves, if you can’t play with the big dogs than get off the porch.” With that stated, we seriously need to change the school system for.
Crime rates across the U.S. for juveniles is at all time high. Juveniles across all demographic have been punished more severely than those of the past. Contributing factors including lower socioeconomic areas such as the Detroit Metropolitan Areas & Chicago. This paper will discuss the apparent issue within the system focusing on juveniles in urban areas.
... in some cases for the rest of their life could be the answer to showing kids this is not a game. We need to get back the control of our streets. Times have changed now let us change with them.
Today, teen curfews are commonplace and supported by voters. Bainbridge observes that according to Jet Magazine’s survey taken in 2011, 75% of the voters were in support of curfew laws (13). Parents arrange for young children to go to bed at an earlier time than teenagers (Psychologytoday.com). Teens receive the privilege to stay up later but this can mean that they will be out on the streets later at night. McKinny indicates that curfews are in place to protect the youth from crimes that may harm them or take the children’s lives (Time.com).
In today's society juveniles are being tried in adult courts, given the death penalty, and sent to prison. Should fourteen-year olds accused of murder or rape automatically be tried as adults? Should six-teen year olds and seven-teen year olds tried in adult courts be forced to serve time in adult prisons, where they are more likely to be sexually assaulted and to become repeat offenders. How much discretion should a judge have in deciding the fate of a juvenile accused of a crime - serious, violent, or otherwise? The juvenile crime rate that was so alarming a few years ago has begun to fall - juvenile felony arrest rates in California have declined by more than forty percent in the last twenty years. While California's juvenile population rose by a half a million since the middle and late 1970's, juveniles made up less than fifth-teen percent of California's felony arrests in 1998, compared to thirty percent in 1978; according to the Justice Policy Institute. The juvenile arrests have dropped back, even as the population of kids between ages of ten and eight-teen has continued to grow, and the number of kids confined in the California Youth Authority (CYA) has fallen. With all the progress our society has made in cutting back in juvenile crimes there is still a very serious problem. But if locking kids up is the best way to address it, how do we explain a drop in crime when there are more teens in California and fewer in custody? First we must look at the economy around us. With so many job opportunities available more and more teenagers find honest ways to keep busy and make money. Our generation has a brighter future than the generation a decade ago. Next we look at successful crime prevention efforts: after-school programs, mentoring, teen outreach programs, truancy abatement, anti-gang programs, family resource centers. There is evidence that these programs are beginning to pay off. Sending more, and younger teens through the adult court system has been a trend across the country in reaction to crimes, such as school shootings and violent rapes. Yet evidence shows that treating youth as adults does not reduce crime. In Florida, where probability wise more kids are tried as adults then in any other state, studies found that youth sent through the adult court system are twice as likely to commit more crimes when they're release...
They open up the doors to a new discussion that explores the idea of not punishments for crimes they commit, but preventing them before they take place. Staying after school, involved in productive activities seems to help students stay out of trouble. Curfews are imposed in some states, preventing juveniles from being out past a certain time until a time early the next day. These curfews are said to be in place in order to prevent crimes, but there are no statistics to back this up, as there are for the crime rate dropping with kids staying after school. Regardless, these are matters of precaution taken in order to attempt to prevent crimes from happening at the times in which they’d be anticipated to. If things are in place in order to prevent juveniles from committing crimes, the crime rate will drop, and many people will be saved from entering a world unknown to the world that is prison. Stopping juveniles from committing crimes would maybe them cause adults to not commit crimes as well, since in essence, these juveniles will indeed one day be adults. By implementing laws, states and law makers understand that there will always be people that don’t follow them. By stating programs, allowing juveniles a place to reconcile with small mistakes they make, or creating a safe-place where they can seek help from
As shown above, curfew laws can play a very critical role in a teenager’s life. It can assist with keeping the city safer, help them get enough sleep, and help them build their personal skill under a well-structured system routine. A lot of people might find curfew laws for teenagers unconstitutional and contradict the first amendment, so they decide not to abide with it. But by doing so, they are placing more a bigger experience to teenagers who are still working on developing their skills to take on new challenges. After all, Teenagers are the future of our society if we don’t teach, coach, direct, and offer guidance their future will be unstable and unproductive and that will affect the entire nation.
The truth about crime prevention is more complicated –less utopian than some liberals would like, but far more promising than conservatives will admit. Prevention can work and that it can be far less costly, in every sense, than continuing to rely on incarceration as out first defense against violent crimes. Instead of simply insisting that prevention is better than incarceration, then, we need to pinpoint more clearly what kinds of prevention work—and why some programs work and others do not, the most encouraging efforts share important characteristics; there are reasons why they work, whether the ‘target’ population is abusive families, vulnerable teens, or serious juvenile offenders who’ve already broken the law. Likewise, there are reasons why other programs fail, no matter how fashionable or popular they may be. Given what we’ve learned about crime prevention in recent years, four priorities seem especially critical: preventing child abuse and neglect, enhancing children’s intellectual and social development, providing support and guidance to vulnerable adolescents and working intensively with juvenile offenders. These aren’t the preventive strategies that can make a difference, but they are the ones that offer the strongest evidence of effectiveness. And they also fit our growing understanding of the roots delinquency and violent crime.
Curfews are here to stop teenagers from roaming the streets at night and causing trouble. In consideration of having a curfew for teenagers, the crime rate has greatly decreased. Many tests and studies have confirmed that curfews do keep teenagers out of trouble. Curfews have helped keep many of the streets safe and free of crime in various cities around the world, even cities in Michigan.
Weigel, Margaret. "Impact of Juvenile Curfew Laws on Arrest of Youth and Adults." 29 November 2011. Journalist's Resource. 7 May 2014 .
Strict rules create rebellious teens. Many people think that curfews are a fundamental way to keeping teens out of trouble, but this is not the case. Curfews are neither applicable, justified, nor are they a way to diminish criminal activities committed by adolescents. Curfews are ultimately useless because there are too many reasons that contradict why a curfew would work.
How can a curfew keep my young teenager from doing illegal activities? Having a curfew provides teens with a limited amount of time to commit any criminal offenses.