The following appeared as an editorial in the local newspaper of Dalton. "When the neighboring town of Williamsville adopted a curfew four months ago that made it illegal for persons under the age of 18 to loiter or idle in public places after 10 p.m., yo

The author of this editorial argues that in order to reduce its rising crime rate the city of Dalton should establish a 10:00 curfew for minors under age 18. The author also claims that the curfew would control juvenile delinquency as well as preventing minors from becoming crime victims. To support these claims the author points out that Williamsville established a similar curfew four months ago, and that since then Williamsville's youth crime rate has dropped by 27% during curfew hours. The author also points out that in Williamsville's town square no crimes have been reported in the last four months, yet Williamsville residents had previously expressed particular outrage about the square's high crime rate. I find the editorial logically unconvincing in several respects.

To begin with, the author has failed to convince me that Williamsville's overall crime rate has declined, or that the curfew was responsible for any such decline. It is entirely possible that although that city's youth crime rate has declined, its adult crime rate has risen. If so, this fact would seriously call into question the author's claim that a similar curfew would reduce Dalton's overall crime rate. Even if Williamsville's overall crime rate has declined in the last four months, the decline is not necessarily attributable to the curfew. Perhaps Williamsville has also enhanced its police enforcement, or established social programs that help minors avoid delinquency. In short, without evidence that all other conditions that might affect Williamsville's crime rate have remained unchanged during the last four months, the author's claim that the curfew is responsible for the drop in that city's crime rate is dubious at best.

Moreover, the evidence involving the town square does not adequately show that Williamsville's curfew has been effective in reducing its crime rate. The number of crimes reported in the square does not necessarily reflect the number actually committed there.

Also, it is entirely possible that Williamsville's residents had already abandoned the town square at night by the time Williamsville established the curfew. If so, then the mere fact that no crimes in the square have been committed or reported recently proves nothing about the effectiveness of the curfew.

Even if Williamsville's curfew was responsible for a decline in that city's overall crime rate, the editorial's claim that a similar curfew would be effective in Dalton is unwarranted. Dalton might differ from Williamsville in ways that would undermine the curfew's effectiveness in Dalton. Or perhaps the percentage of crimes that are committed by adults is far greater in Dalton that in W'filiamsville. In either case, a curfew that is effective in reducing Williamsville's overall crime rate might be far less effective in reducing Dalton's.

Even assuming the proposed curfew would reduce Dalton's overall crime rate, the author unfairly infers that the curfew would also curb juvenile delinquency. The author's definition of juvenile delinquency might embrace additional behaviors--ones that don't amount to crimes. Besides, a reduction in the overall crime rate does not necessarily indicate a reduction in the youth crime rate.

The author's further inference that the curfew would protect minors from becoming crime victims is also unwarranted. This inference depends on the assumption that all crimes against youths occur during curfew hours. Yet common sense informs me that many such crimes occur during other hours. The inference also rests on the assumption that it is adults who are committing all crimes against youths. Yet the author fails to account for the possibility that some crimes against youths are committed by other youths.

In sum, the editorial relies on a series of dubious assumptions, which render it wholly unpersuasive. To bolster the editorial's claims the author must provide clear evidence that the curfew, and not some other phenomenon, was in fact responsible for a decline in Williamsville's youth crime rate. The author must also show that the curfew would have a similar effect in Dalton, and that the curfew would result in a decline in not just the youth crime rate but also the overall crime rate. To better assess the author's final two claims I would need to know how the author defines 'juvenile delinquency,' and what percentage of crimes against Dalton's youth are committed by other youths.