Curfew | Teen Ink

Curfew

January 29, 2010
By alleykat1995 GOLD, Linden, Pennsylvania
alleykat1995 GOLD, Linden, Pennsylvania
15 articles 0 photos 0 comments

So how many kids do you know that go out at night after 7 p.m? Well what would you do if the curfew were at 7 p.m. instead of 11 p.m.? It would not be good if the curfew was at 7 for kids ages 16 and under, because kids need to walk to places. Another reason curfew should not be at 7 is because the may have to do something important. Yeah, sure it would help with lowering the crime percent, but what if it was an emergency? Curfew should not be at 7 p.m.

Kids, ages 16 and under, may need to be out pass 7 p.m. because they may have after school activities; such as sports, or after school help. Lastly, they might have to go to the store if their parent(s) couldn’t provide transportation.

My second reason we shouldn’t have a curfew at 7 p.m. is kids may have something important to do. Kids at the age of 14-16 may have to walk or drive, to or from work. Also, there are a lot of kids that have to pick up a little sibling(s) from day care or something.

My last reason is, what if there was an emergency? Something may happen to the parent of the kid and they might have to go somewhere to get help. Also that kids parent might be at work so the kid has to drive themselves to the doctors. Having a curfew at 7 p.m. would maybe decrease car crashes, because there are not kids running through the streets. But if there is an emergency, the kid should be able to leave their house without getting in trouble for it.

In conclusion, having a curfew for kids ages 16 and under may be helpful so there is less crime; but some kids may have something important to do. But when you think about it, that kid also might be doing something for his/her parent. Lastly, if we set curfew for 7 p.m. and the kid has an emergency, they would get in trouble for trying to help. So, if there is ever a vote to set a curfew at 7 p.m. for kids ages 16 and under; votes No!!!


Similar Articles

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

This article has 0 comments.