Question:
Some people think that a law should exist so that young people under 18 cannot be out after midnight, others think it should not be. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Sample Answer:
In many countries, there is an ongoing debate about whether legislation should prohibit individuals under the age of eighteen from staying outdoors after midnight. While some argue that such a law would safeguard young people from potential risks, others contend that it would be an unnecessary restriction on their personal freedom. I believe that a curfew for minors can be beneficial, provided it is implemented with flexibility.
On the one hand, advocates of a midnight curfew emphasise the importance of safety and social discipline. Late-night environments often carry higher risks, including exposure to criminal activities, substance abuse, and unsafe driving conditions. For instance, in certain urban areas, law enforcement reports indicate that incidents involving teenagers occur disproportionately during the late hours. A legally enforced curfew could therefore act as a deterrent, reducing the likelihood of young people being involved in or victimised by such situations. Furthermore, it might encourage healthier routines, such as adequate sleep, which is essential for academic performance and mental well-being.
On the other hand, opponents argue that imposing such a blanket rule undermines personal freedom and parental authority. They contend that not all late-night activities are harmful — some may involve cultural events, religious gatherings, or family occasions that extend beyond midnight. From this perspective, a rigid curfew fails to account for individual circumstances and may foster resentment among adolescents, making them less cooperative. Critics also note that teaching young people responsibility and self-discipline is more effective than simply enforcing compliance through legal means.
In my view, while the intention behind a curfew is valid, it should be implemented with certain reasonable exemptions. For example, minors accompanied by a responsible adult, attending legitimate events, or commuting home from work should not be penalised. This balanced approach would ensure safety without unnecessarily infringing on personal freedom.
In conclusion, a midnight curfew for individuals under 18 could enhance safety and promote healthier lifestyles, but its effectiveness depends on how sensitively it is enforced. A flexible legal framework, rather than an absolute ban, would best reconcile the need for protection with the value of personal liberty.
High-Level Lexical Resource Used:
-
safeguard young people
-
disproportionate
-
act as a deterrent
-
undermine personal freedom
-
parental authority
-
rigid curfew
-
foster resentment
-
legitimate events
-
infringing on personal freedom
-
reconcile the need for protection
No comments:
Post a Comment