Police informing parents of teens below 17 who stay on streets after 11 pm

Personally, I agree to a large extent that this should be implemented. However, there should be due consideration and special care allocated to a select group of youths who grow up in problematic homes.

Firstly, this is able to get potential victims of crimes out of the way or prevent potential crimes from happening. Police will only inform the parents if the youths are loitering in a secluded area or one which has seen a spate of crime. This move is inspired by the recent 20% rise in youth crime rate last year. Youths account for 22% of the total number of arrests last year even though they constitute only 15% of the population. Many were arrested for fighting with their peers in void decks, lift landings etc, usually in the wee hours of the night. By keeping teens at home during this period of time, it is indirectly contributing to the reducing of the incidences of these crimes happening.

Secondly, this move also has an advantage as it is able to identify youths that have problematic family backgrounds. Youths who loiter around at night could be runaways from their own home, and with probing by the police, they could be appropriately referred to family service centres which would provide assistance for them. Finding out such cases early would help the development of the youths' psychological dimension and help to alleviate or put a stop to the hurt suffered by coming from a family plagued by problems. The US police put up a shelter for some teens when no family member comes to bring them home. This aids in identifying such problematic cases earlier and is beneficial to the youths.

Thirdly, this makes streets at night safer. Many wayward youths loiter around at night and are susceptible to joining gangs or participating in gang fights. People on the streets at night might face threats of fights from gangs or groups of youths. However, youths argue that it is a restriction of their freedom and it makes them feel that they are looked upon as being immature enough to make informed decisions and to realise the consequences. Moreover, they think that it would probably cause them to lose their trust with their parents when they are found walking on the streets for only a short while when they told their parents that they are studying. After parents are notified by the police, there could be a possible strain in relationship as the parents might become too dictative over their children. But if there is a strong relationship in the first place, parents are likely to know the temperament of their children well and this measure will not affect the measure of trust they have in their children. It also helps parents to identify lying, in some cases, so that they can take measures to encourage greater communication with their children. Moreover, youths can also schedule their activities to earlier parts of the day as well. Such a measure is also not as strict as the curfew imposed in America, so the situation might not be that serious as youths picture it to be.

It is unsure that this message will effectively reduce youth crime rate as the statistics might take a few years to show up any change in crime rate. However, it is a commendable attempt to stem the increasing crime rate. As society gets more open, the idea of freedom is becoming more widely accepted. Imposing such a measure would inadvertently draw protests and criticism. However, in the light of incriminating statistics that youth crime rate is on the rise and getting serious, something has to be done. The duty to maintain social order in this case outweighs the individual's right to personal freedom.

In conclusion, I think that such a measure is beneficial to a large extent. As they always say, "Prevention is better than cure", moreover, a prison record is jarring to one's life. As such, we should put in our best to prevent our youths from taking the wrong paths.

"Do you know where your kids are?" Andy Ho,2/3/06
"Police act to keep teens off streets after 11pm" 16/2/06
"Move to stop teens from loitering 'not a curfew'"