Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Child curfews
Section G. Crime and punishment

Punishing children and preventing them from committing crimes poses a peculiar problem for law enforcement. Often it is harder to prosecute children, and the available punishments are less severe; in addition, governments are keen to emphasise the need for softer measures to deal with youth crime, which focus on enhancing parental involvement in crime prevention. Curfews can be part of a broader strategy to prevent youth crime before it takes place, rather than only punishing it after the event.

Pros

[1] There is a worrying increase in antisocial and criminal behaviour among young children. There have been horrific cases of crimes perpetrated by children under the age of 13; many of the participants in the 2011 London riots were very young. We need to take action to stem this tide of young offending. Children pick up anti-social and criminal behaviour and habits from older children with whom they associate. Much of this crime (car theft, drugs, vandalism, gang fights) takes place at night, and child curfews will give the police an additional weapon with which to fight offending by young people.

[2] Parents would also have a responsibility to enforce the curfew. Any policy to combat youth crime must include an important role for parents who must be made to take responsibility for their children. They, along with their child, would be liable to punishment if the curfew is broken. This would serve as an incentive to better and more responsible parenting.

[3] Curfews also protect young people from crime; it is much harder to protect them at night, when there are fewer passers-by or people looking out of their windows, than during the day, when the eyes and ears of a community are all around to watch out for them. Parents cannot know where their children are at all times; thus, the state should assist them in making sure that they are at home when they are most in danger.

Cons

[1] The sort of children who would murder, or even those who would get involved in gangs, drugs and car theft, will not take the slightest bit of notice of a curfew. Children who behave in these criminal and anti-social ways are well past taking notice of bedtimes. Youth crime is a radical and alarming problem that calls for a more radical solution. The age of criminal responsibility should be lowered to eight, and sentences for young offenders should be more severe, and imposed after a single ’final warning’, rather than children receiving several ’cautions’ before any punishment is dished out.

[2] Most young offenders learn violent behaviour, lack of respect for property, indiscipline and dishonesty from their parents. Others learn it from their peers, and the need to impress these peers and be included by them outweighs any worthy parental entreaties. In the first case, the parent would not care whether a curfew was enforced; and in the second case, they would be powerless to see that it was. So introducing a curfew would be an empty and futile gesture.

[3] If anything, curfews put children in more danger, because they discourage them from seeking help from the police or other adults if they are out late at night and get into trouble; this is because they will fear admitting that they have broken the curfew rules. Moreover, parents may wrongly assume that their children are not breaching curfew, and so fail to protect them sufficiently.

Possible motions

This House would put a curfew on children.

This House would not allow kids out after dark.

Related topics

Smacking, remove parents’ right to

School uniform

Zero tolerance

Parents, responsibility for the criminal acts of their children