Some countries are considering imposing curfews in which teenagers will not be allowed outdoors at night unless they are accompanied by an adult. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this policy?

Some governments are considering proposals to institute curfews for teenagers that would require them to be in the presence of an adult after certain hours. In my opinion, the marginal benefits of such a policy would be greatly outweighed by its social drawbacks. One the one hand, requiring teenagers to remain at home at night could help curb juvenile delinquency. In certain cities, it is common for particular neighborhoods to be full of criminal activity late at night. A teenager who is either engaging in such activity or simply passing through those areas is at significant risk. By staying home, teenagers would be forced to engage in more wholesome activities and the authorities would be better able to police the streets. In this way, governments could limit both crimes commited by and upon teenagers. However, the cases mentioned above affect a minority of teenagers while this reform would impair the social growth of the majority. Ensuring teenagers stay home essentially limits their social acquaintances to within their family. In many situations, if the family is small or there are issues related to abuse, this could foster an unhealthy psychological and social dependence. When teenagers hang out with friends at concerts, malls, parks, and other public venues they begin to develop their identity and manage the demands of interpersonal relationships. Any reforms that hinder such growth are negative for the progress of society more generally. In conclusion, despite the positive effect a curfew would have on misbehavior, such suggestions should be ignored in order to guarantee the healthy social development of adolescents. There are less restrictive methods of reducing juvenile deliquency that could instead be considered.