# Curfews For Teens: Are They The Answer?



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

Hartford, CT. has, for quite some time, had a serious issue with violence and drugs. Now, this is nothing new, especially in a large cities. In an effort to curb this violence, the city has put a curfew for kids 18 and younger into effect. I'm going to post a few articles for reference.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/statewire/hc-11160616.apds.m0467.bc-ct--hartaug11,0,4402241.story

http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-hartford-curfew,0,5733253.story


One thing that caught my eye was this:

"The ACLU of Connecticut opposes juvenile curfews because they're essentially a violation of fundamental rights of innocent people," he said. "Curfews essentially are placing an entire demographic, in this case, youth, under house arrest for the inappropriate actions of a few."

It should be a no brainer that the ACLU would get involved. Now, while it would be stereotyping to say that every 15, 16 and 18 yo. is a violent thug, one has to ask, why would a 15yo, regardless of the day of the week, be out at 1am? I doubt they're coming home from a job. Could they be visiting a friend? Possibly, but at that hour? 

This program is supposed to run for 30 days. It'll be interesting to see how things work out.

Thoughts on the program?


----------



## tshadowchaser (Aug 13, 2008)

It is a good try at curbing the violence but I doubt it will work.
I see many law suits coming out of this.

If a group of youths want to brake the curfew and cause mischief I am sure they will.  Do the gun laws keep youths in gangs from having guns? NO. Then why do they think a curfew will work?
It will only work for those youths that obey  and those with parents that say stay home


----------



## jkembry (Aug 13, 2008)

MJS said:


> One thing that caught my eye was this:
> 
> "The ACLU of Connecticut opposes juvenile curfews because they're essentially a violation of fundamental rights of innocent people," he said. "Curfews essentially are placing an entire demographic, in this case, youth, under house arrest for the inappropriate actions of a few."
> 
> ...




You know there are reasons why the teens are known as minors in the eyes of the law.  Not to say that all are not mature enough to know better than to do what they are trying to fight (violence...etc.), but I would bet that most at that age REALLY don't have a reason to be out past the curfew time.


----------



## terryl965 (Aug 13, 2008)

I can see why they want it but is it correct to make all pay for the crimes of a few.


----------



## Twin Fist (Aug 13, 2008)

I got no problem with it.

the good kids will be off the street and safe from the bad kids, and the police wont have the good kids to worry about so they can focus on the bad kids, cuz they will be the only ones around.

i say more power to the city and police


----------



## MBuzzy (Aug 13, 2008)

Seems to me that the ones who are causing the problems aren't going to follow the curfew anyway.  The only one who will are the responsible kids and kids with responsible parents - who aren't causing a problem anyway.


----------



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> It is a good try at curbing the violence but I doubt it will work.
> I see many law suits coming out of this.
> 
> If a group of youths want to brake the curfew and cause mischief I am sure they will. Do the gun laws keep youths in gangs from having guns? NO. Then why do they think a curfew will work?
> It will only work for those youths that obey and those with parents that say stay home


 
The city is very busy, so it'll be interesting to see how this is enforced with all of the other stuff going on to keep the officers busy.  

I do think its a good plan, and I hope it does work, but as I said, it'll be interesting to see the results after the 30 day period.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 13, 2008)

MJS said:


> The city is very busy, so it'll be interesting to see how this is enforced with all of the other stuff going on to keep the officers busy.
> 
> I do think its a good plan, and I hope it does work, but as I said, it'll be interesting to see the results after the 30 day period.



Yes I am curious to see the results on this as well.


----------



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

jkembry said:


> You know there are reasons why the teens are known as minors in the eyes of the law. Not to say that all are not mature enough to know better than to do what they are trying to fight (violence...etc.), but I would bet that most at that age REALLY don't have a reason to be out past the curfew time.


 
I agree, and I question why the parents are not keeping tabs on their kids.  An article in todays paper, which there doesnt seem to be a link of the Hartford Courant site yet, has a guy who is saying that whats really needed is a father figure.  Not sure where he got the stats, but he said that 70% of families in the city are single parents.  So, he's basically saying that if its a single mom, that there is a good chance that her kids will fall into the problem child category.  I doubt that every single mom out there has a wild child.  Of course, the real issue, IMO, isn't the fathers, its the mothers and their poor choice of who they choose to have a baby with.  I mean really, if you knew that the guy you were sleeping with was a dirtbag, would you sleep with him, bring a kid into the world, and then complain that the reason why your child is out of control is because the dad isn't there?  

I'm sure some may say thats a sexist comment, but I have no issues with women.  My issue is with people who do dumb things, and then complain when they get jammed up.  Kinda like running a red light right in front of a cop, and then wonder why you got pulled over.


----------



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> I can see why they want it but is it correct to make all pay for the crimes of a few.


 
Good point and I'm sure that is a question that many others are asking as well.  If I had to make a guess, I'd say the people who are pushing for this are thinking, "What reason does a 14yo have for being out at 1am?"  and IMO, I have to wonder the same thing.  If hardly anything is open at that hour, what other reason do you have for being out?


----------



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I got no problem with it.
> 
> the good kids will be off the street and safe from the bad kids, and the police wont have the good kids to worry about so they can focus on the bad kids, cuz they will be the only ones around.
> 
> i say more power to the city and police


 
Thats what I was thinking as well.


----------



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> Seems to me that the ones who are causing the problems aren't going to follow the curfew anyway. The only one who will are the responsible kids and kids with responsible parents - who aren't causing a problem anyway.


 
Most likely that will be the way the situation plays out.  And I'm sure when the cops do come across an offender, it won't be the first or last time they're caught.


----------



## jkembry (Aug 13, 2008)

MJS said:


> I agree, and I question why the parents are not keeping tabs on their kids.  An article in todays paper, which there doesnt seem to be a link of the Hartford Courant site yet, has a guy who is saying that whats really needed is a father figure.  Not sure where he got the stats, but he said that 70% of families in the city are single parents.  So, he's basically saying that if its a single mom, that there is a good chance that her kids will fall into the problem child category.  I doubt that every single mom out there has a wild child.  Of course, the real issue, IMO, isn't the fathers, its the mothers and their poor choice of who they choose to have a baby with.  I mean really, if you knew that the guy you were sleeping with was a dirtbag, would you sleep with him, bring a kid into the world, and then complain that the reason why your child is out of control is because the dad isn't there?
> 
> I'm sure some may say thats a sexist comment, but I have no issues with women.  My issue is with people who do dumb things, and then complain when they get jammed up.  Kinda like running a red light right in front of a cop, and then wonder why you got pulled over.



I agree that a lot goes to the parenting...or lack of parenting.  Since I don't have any kids...and truth be told don't really want any...I can not speak from experience, but from what I have seen there are a lot of places in today's society that we are asking various organizations (schools) and laws to become a substitute for parents.


----------



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

jkembry said:


> I agree that a lot goes to the parenting...or lack of parenting. Since I don't have any kids...and truth be told don't really want any...I can not speak from experience, but from what I have seen there are a lot of places in today's society that we are asking various organizations (schools) and laws to become a substitute for parents.


 
Fantastic post!  Likewise, my wife and I don't have kids and none are planned for the immediate future.  My mother and father divorced when I was very little, and she raised me just fine, until she met and married my stepfather.  But you're right, people tend nowadays, to put the blame on someone else instead of owning up to their faults.  I work as a dispatcher for a PD here in CT.  You'd be shocked at the number of calls that I take from people who say that they'd like an officer to come to their house to speak with their child because the kid doesnt want to go to school, because the child isnt listening to them.  Hmm...that sounds like some poor parenting to me.


----------



## jkembry (Aug 13, 2008)

MJS said:


> Fantastic post!  Likewise, my wife and I don't have kids and none are planned for the immediate future.  My mother and father divorced when I was very little, and she raised me just fine, until she met and married my stepfather.  But you're right, people tend nowadays, to put the blame on someone else instead of owning up to their faults.  I work as a dispatcher for a PD here in CT.  You'd be shocked at the number of calls that I take from people who say that they'd like an officer to come to their house to speak with their child because the kid doesnt want to go to school, because the child isnt listening to them.  Hmm...that sounds like some poor parenting to me.




Another dispatcher eh.  I am a former dispatcher from a small town in Kentucky.  I dispatched police, fire, ambulance and sheriff.  I can attest to strange calls and strange visits to the PD...I was also after hours receptionist for the PD...I had 2nd shift.


----------



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

jkembry said:


> Another dispatcher eh. I am a former dispatcher from a small town in Kentucky. I dispatched police, fire, ambulance and sheriff. I can attest to strange calls and strange visits to the PD...I was also after hours receptionist for the PD...I had 2nd shift.


 
Yup, sounds like me. LOL!  4pm-12am shift, PD, Fire, EMS.  This is done for a city as well as a smaller neighboring town.  I say all the time that I wish I had started a journal from day 1, jotting down some notes from day to day.  Man, 6yrs. later, I'd have some stories! LOL!


----------



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

And on a similar note.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26171820/

"HELENA-WEST HELENA, Ark. - Officers armed with military rifles have been stopping and questioning passers-by in a U.S. neighborhood plagued by violence that's been under a 24-hour curfew for a week.
On Tuesday, the Helena-West Helena City Council voted 9-0 to allow police to expand that program into any area of the city, despite a warning from a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas that the police stops were unconstitutional.
Police Chief Fred Fielder said the patrols have netted 32 arrests since they began last week in a 10-block neighborhood in this small town on the banks of the Mississippi River long troubled by poverty. The council said those living in the city want the random shootings and drug-fueled violence to stop, no matter what the cost."

I can't say I disagree with this:

"As far as I'm concerned, at 3 o'clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law," Councilman Eugene "Red" Johnson said. "Anyone out at 3 o'clock shouldn't be out on the street, unless you're going to the hospital."


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 13, 2008)

MJS said:


> why would a 15yo, regardless of the day of the week, be out at 1am? I doubt they're coming home from a job. Could they be visiting a friend? Possibly, but at that hour?



Why would anybody be out at that hour?  There is no magic event that occurs when you turn 18 that suddenly changes that rule.  There are also plenty of criminals that are over 18.

So why not apply the curfew to everyone, regardless of age?  For the exact same reason you shouldn't apply it to a segment of that population, that just happens to be a segment that isn't allowed to vote.


----------



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> Why would anybody be out at that hour? There is no magic event that occurs when you turn 18 that suddenly changes that rule. There are also plenty of criminals that are over 18.
> 
> So why not apply the curfew to everyone, regardless of age? For the exact same reason you shouldn't apply it to a segment of that population, that just happens to be a segment that isn't allowed to vote.


 
Well, you bring up a very good point, and one that I agree 100% with.   The focus of the newspaper article was on teens, so thats what I initially focused on, however, crimes or issues are not limited to people 18 and under.  The other link that I posted, as far as I can tell, addresses everyone, not just teens.  

I mean, it does make you wonder....unless its a 24hr. store, or you're in a 24/7 type of job, alot of things are closed.  So, unless all those people wandering around when most others are sound asleep, are going to or from those 24/7 jobs, you have to wonder...what other reason could they possibly have for being out at that hour?


----------



## Drac (Aug 13, 2008)

We have curfews in place here, it doesn't seem to help much...What would *REALLY* help is if the offenders to get more that a slap on the wrist..


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 13, 2008)

MJS said:


> It should be a no brainer that the ACLU would get involved. Now, while it would be stereotyping to say that every 15, 16 and 18 yo. is a violent thug, one has to ask, why would a 15yo, regardless of the day of the week, be out at 1am? I doubt they're coming home from a job. Could they be visiting a friend? Possibly, but at that hour?
> 
> This program is supposed to run for 30 days. It'll be interesting to see how things work out.
> 
> Thoughts on the program?


 
Well yes, it's entirely possible, and believe it or not, in most cases probably true. I remember in high school there were a few times when my friends and I were simply hanging out and realized the time was past midnight.  Didn't mean we were all shooting up, and in truth, to say "what could a 16 y.o. be doing at 1am?" is profiling.  How would I have felt if, while driving home from just hanging out late, a cop had pulled me over simply because of my age and asked me if I'd been doing drugs?  

As far as the merits of the curfew, such as its effectiveness and appropriateness, I suppose we should ask whether the demographic of the culprits in this sudden rise of drugs & violence are underage.  If the answer is no, then this curfew will do next to nothing.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 13, 2008)

terryl965 said:


> I can see why they want it but is it correct to make all pay for the crimes of a few.



been through an airport lately?


----------



## Kacey (Aug 13, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> It is a good try at curbing the violence but I doubt it will work.
> I see many law suits coming out of this.
> 
> If a group of youths want to brake the curfew and cause mischief I am sure they will.  Do the gun laws keep youths in gangs from having guns? NO. Then why do they think a curfew will work?
> It will only work for those youths that obey  and those with parents that say stay home





terryl965 said:


> I can see why they want it but is it correct to make all pay for the crimes of a few.





MBuzzy said:


> Seems to me that the ones who are causing the problems aren't going to follow the curfew anyway.  The only one who will are the responsible kids and kids with responsible parents - who aren't causing a problem anyway.



As I was reading the article, all of the above thoughts (and a few others also stated) occurred to me - particularly the analogy to gun laws.  I don't have a problem with the curfew itself... but then, the curfew my parents gave me when I was old enough to go out by myself was earlier than that, and I never missed it (okay, once, but I had a flat tire - and I called to tell them I'd be late).

As a teacher, I see quite a few well-behaved, well-raised kids - but the nail that sticks out gets pounded in... in this case, the kids who cause problems are the source of this law.  Will it work?  Maybe in the short run - but until these kids - _and their parents_ - get more than a slap on the wrist, it's not going to make a difference.

The other problem I see is similar to having legal limits on the drinking age - there are kids out there who drink _because _it's illegal, because they enjoy getting away with things.  I foresee, at least potentially, kids who weren't previously in trouble staying out past curfew just to see if they can get away with it - and the more there are, the harder it will be to catch all of them, which could easily spiral out of control, and could, in the end, cause more problems than the curfew is designed to prevent.


----------



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Well yes, it's entirely possible, and believe it or not, in most cases probably true. I remember in high school there were a few times when my friends and I were simply hanging out and realized the time was past midnight. Didn't mean we were all shooting up, and in truth, to say "what could a 16 y.o. be doing at 1am?" is profiling. How would I have felt if, while driving home from just hanging out late, a cop had pulled me over simply because of my age and asked me if I'd been doing drugs?


 
Well, as I said in my OP...it is stereotyping if we said that every 15, 16 and 18 yo are considered thugs.  Could people be visiting friends?  Sure.  But, if an area is known to be a problem area, and a cop saw a car filled with teens at 3am, are you honestly telling me that he wouldn't be a bit curious?  

Hey, look at it this way.  I've been stopped at DUI check points.  It just happened to be my car.  I don't drink and drive, but I was still stopped.  Am I being stereotyped and put into a category of people who do drink and drive?  

In a nutshell, yes, I'm sure some people will be lumped in the same group as the problem kids.  Like I said, if parents did their job, perhaps things like this wouldn't happen.



> As far as the merits of the curfew, such as its effectiveness and appropriateness, I suppose we should ask whether the demographic of the culprits in this sudden rise of drugs & violence are underage. If the answer is no, then this curfew will do next to nothing.


 
http://www.courant.com/community/news/hfd/hc-ctcopdigbrf0803.art0aug03,0,7147111.story

Not teens, but still young.

http://www.courant.com/community/news/hfd/hcu-hfdshot-0722,0,7001041.story

Another that involved teens, but it happened during the day, not at night.

I think the above should answer your question.


----------



## Ninjamom (Aug 13, 2008)

tshadowchaser said:


> .......If a group of youths want to brake the curfew and cause mischief I am sure they will. Do the gun laws keep youths in gangs from having guns? NO. Then why do they think a curfew will work?...


 


MBuzzy said:


> Seems to me that the ones who are causing the problems aren't going to follow the curfew anyway. The only one who will are the responsible kids and kids with responsible parents - who aren't causing a problem anyway.


 
Ah, but you are forgetting something - if there is a curfew law, then youth can be stopped by the police just for being _seen_.

There is a big difference between a gun law and a curfew law.  Gun laws don't work because criminals get _and hide _their illegal guns.  Curfew laws allow youth to be stopped, possibly fined and/or punished, have their parents alerted, and at the very least, be identified and noted in the police records for having been stopped/questioned, all _before _any property or violent crimes are committed.  While penalties for breaking curfew probably won't be severe, being identified as a habitual curfew-breaker will assist in future prosecution and sentencing, should the occasion arise.

Yes, I think youth curfews are perfectly reasonable, especially if they make exceptions for things like medical emergencies and jobs (since minors need a valid work permit to hold a job anyway).  Yes, I wish there were such laws on the books in my neighborhood.


----------



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Well yes, it's entirely possible, and believe it or not, in most cases probably true. I remember in high school there were a few times when my friends and I were simply hanging out and realized the time was past midnight. Didn't mean we were all shooting up, and in truth, to say "what could a 16 y.o. be doing at 1am?" is profiling. How would I have felt if, while driving home from just hanging out late, a cop had pulled me over simply because of my age and asked me if I'd been doing drugs?




I'm sure you will think this is profiling as well.  However, due to the large number of traffic accidents, many of which have been fatal, in the state of CT, I like the idea of this.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 13, 2008)

MJS said:


> I mean, it does make you wonder....unless its a 24hr. store, or you're in a 24/7 type of job, alot of things are closed.  So, unless all those people wandering around when most others are sound asleep, are going to or from those 24/7 jobs, you have to wonder...what other reason could they possibly have for being out at that hour?



I don't think it matters.  If someone wants to walk there dog, or go for a jog, or visit a friend, or come home from visiting a friend, or any other legal activity its there business, they don't need to justify themselves.

I think there is a very simple test for something like this.  Would any politician attempt to pass a law like this if it effected people that could vote?  Nope, they'd never win another election.  But the age cut off, 18, also happens to be the age they are allowed to vote.  



Ninjamom said:


> Ah, but you are forgetting something - if there is a curfew law, then youth can be stopped by the police just for being _seen_.



"Papers please"

Oh, and based just on appearance how is a cop to know if a person is 17 or 18?  Tobacco retailers have discovered that little problem and ID anyone that looks like they could be under 25.  So if a 24 year old is out, does he have to prove he is at least 18 to any cop that he runs into?



> since minors need a valid work permit to hold a job anyway



Really?  as a form of ID that they carry around with them?

I think if you are under 16 you need parental and school permission here, but anyone over 16 doesn't need a work permit, guess we got different rules on that.


----------



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> I don't think it matters. If someone wants to walk there dog, or go for a jog, or visit a friend, or come home from visiting a friend, or any other legal activity its there business, they don't need to justify themselves.


 
I still stand by what I said.  Hey, I leave work at 12am.  Do I see cars on the road?  Sure.  I don't see anyone jogging thought.   I arrive home and its dead quiet in the condo complex.  Like I said, do people have reasons to be out?  I'm sure some do and some dont.  Are the good people going to fall victim to the 'rule' because of the bad apples?  Yes.  Andrew, it happens all the time, its nothing new.  Everyone pays a price for the actions of an idiot.  Someone shoplifts, and store has to recover, so things get raised.  



> I think there is a very simple test for something like this. Would any politician attempt to pass a law like this if it effected people that could vote? Nope, they'd never win another election. But the age cut off, 18, also happens to be the age they are allowed to vote.


 
I wonder how many voters voted against the DUI law.  Come on now, this is just silly.  There are laws passed all the time that effect voters and non voters.  




> "Papers please"
> 
> Oh, and based just on appearance how is a cop to know if a person is 17 or 18? Tobacco retailers have discovered that little problem and ID anyone that looks like they could be under 25. So if a 24 year old is out, does he have to prove he is at least 18 to any cop that he runs into?


 
If this curfew law is passed, then yes, anyone who appears to fall into that category would probably get stopped.


----------



## BrandiJo (Aug 13, 2008)

I grew up with a city curfew, it didn't hurt anything. If you where going to or from work or a school event you where fine but if you where out for "no reason" then you got a nice police escort home and had the police talk to your parents.  I doubt it prevented any crimes but it was nice tool for the parents who had unruly teens who thought they would sneak out. But all in all it didnt hurt anyone. If i wasnt at school a work event i was at a friends house or my own


----------



## Ninjamom (Aug 13, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> I don't think it matters. If someone wants to walk there dog, or go for a jog, or visit a friend, or come home from visiting a friend, or any other legal activity its there business, they don't need to justify themselves.


I totally agree - for adults who have reached the age of majority.  Minors do not have the same rights as voting adults, nor should they (they don't have the same responsibilities, either).

But, for adults, yes, they should be allowed to 'peaceably assemble' at whatever gosh-aweful hour of night or day they choose, for whatever non-illegal reason.




> "Papers please"
> 
> Oh, and based just on appearance how is a cop to know if a person is 17 or 18? Tobacco retailers have discovered that little problem and ID anyone that looks like they could be under 25. So if a 24 year old is out, does he have to prove he is at least 18 to any cop that he runs into?


"Liscence and registration, please," which of course will also verify age.




> Really? as a form of ID that they carry around with them?
> 
> I think if you are under 16 you need parental and school permission here, but anyone over 16 doesn't need a work permit, guess we got different rules on that.


Yeah, we probably do have different laws.  But I'm really surprised that Maryland has a more restrictive law than MB about something  

Seriously, no one would have their work permit with them as a form of ID - my point was that they already had to have govt approval to be out for their stated purpose, so being stopped for curfew violation is no more of a statist intrusion than what already exists.  (Interestingly enough, of course, is the fact that the first statist intrusion [the work permit requirement] was enacted for the 'protection' of the teen whose movements are now being restricted.  Not to go too far off-topic, but I find it amazing how often well-meaning precedent ends up justifying future loss of liberty.)

Anyway, to end my sidetrack and get back on topic, I noticed that the law actually only affects the times younger teens can be out _driving_.  Such a requirement already exists in my state (the profile pictures on driver's licenses face different directions for different ages, making it extremely easy to tell a driver's age at a glance).  It has had a drastic effect on auto-fatality statistics, and arguably impacts those statistics more than the crime-related ones.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 13, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> I But I'm really surprised that Maryland has a more restrictive law than MB about something



Well, you'd probably find quite a few more of those surprises if you did a comparison.  Remember that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, that doesn't come from having worse people.




> Anyway, to end my sidetrack and get back on topic, I noticed that the law actually only affects the times younger teens can be out _driving_.



Not the impression I get from the article:



> The beefed-up curfew that will run for 30 days begins Thursday. No one under 18 will be allowed on the streets after 9 p.m. without a parent or guardian, and violators will be taken to a community center where they will be kept until their parents or guardians pick them up.




I take "on the streets" to mean walking, biking, skateboarding, driving, etc.  

And 9pm?  In the summer it's not even dark by that time.  To say teenagers have no right to be out at that time is ridiculous, that would keep them from attending martial arts classes (which end at 9pm in my club) 



> Such a requirement already exists in my state (the profile pictures on driver's licenses face different directions for different ages, making it extremely easy to tell a driver's age at a glance).  It has had a drastic effect on auto-fatality statistics, and arguably impacts those statistics more than the crime-related ones.



We have a similar requirement, minus the age discrimination, and I think a better response.

After getting a license you have a intermediate stage after passing the test, during that time there are a couple extra restrictions.  Relevant one being you can only have one passenger between 12am and 5am.

My opinion is that it is not a great response, goes against the idea of designated drivers IMO.

But one really important issue in my mind is what this says about the legal system to those under 18.  Probably something similar to what prohibition said when it was in effect.  That the laws are unfair and the police are the enemy.  Result was more criminal activity then before.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 13, 2008)

MJS said:


> Well, as I said in my OP...it is stereotyping if we said that every 15, 16 and 18 yo are considered thugs. Could people be visiting friends? Sure. But, if an area is known to be a problem area, and a cop saw a car filled with teens at 3am, are you honestly telling me that he wouldn't be a bit curious?


 
No, the officer would be doing his job, but there's a bit of a difference between an officer's suspicions in an isolated incident and passing a city curfew.



> http://www.courant.com/community/news/hfd/hc-ctcopdigbrf0803.art0aug03,0,7147111.story
> 
> Not teens, but still young.
> 
> ...


 
Actually, they don't. I was questioning the demographics of the stated rise in drug & crime use; you've quoted a couple isolated incidents.  Besides, Not teens, but still young involved three 20-somethings who would, therefore, not be covered by the curfew.  

My ultimate point is this: applying a curfew to all people under 18 (or 18 and under) on the tenuous assumption that the rise in crime is based on teens is profiling.  For good or ill, reasonable or not, it's profiling.


----------



## Ninjamom (Aug 13, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> My ultimate point is this: applying a curfew to all people under 18 (or 18 and under) on the tenuous assumption that the rise in crime is based on teens is profiling. For good or ill, reasonable or not, it's profiling.


Granted, it's profiling.  But does that make it 'wrong'?  

Or does that even make it less likely to work as intended?


----------



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> No, the officer would be doing his job, but there's a bit of a difference between an officer's suspicions in an isolated incident and passing a city curfew.


 
Maybe we're misunderstanding each other here.  You were concerned that a carload of kids who were visiting friends, not guilty of any crime, would be unfairly targetted.  I agree, and also said that unfortunately thats going to happen.  If a curfew is passed, then anyone who falls into that age category should expect to get stopped.  





> Actually, they don't. I was questioning the demographics of the stated rise in drug & crime use; you've quoted a couple isolated incidents. Besides, Not teens, but still young involved three 20-somethings who would, therefore, not be covered by the curfew.
> 
> My ultimate point is this: applying a curfew to all people under 18 (or 18 and under) on the tenuous assumption that the rise in crime is based on teens is profiling. For good or ill, reasonable or not, it's profiling.


 
Those were simple examples.  You are not from this area, so I highly doubt that you know exactly what goes on in that city.  Perhaps this will shed a bit more light.  If it doesnt then I don't know what else to tell you.  I read some articles in todays paper, and many are saying that this curfew plan won't matter...things will still be out of control.  Perhaps what really needs to be done is, a) parents need to step up and take control of their kids, and b) slap the repeat offenders and those who commit serious crimes, with a harsher penalty.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 13, 2008)

MJS said:


> Perhaps this will shed a bit more light.  If it doesnt then



According to that report the highest numbers based on age are 18 and over. The number of arrests at 16 goes up, and doesn't come back down until 30.

So perhaps the curfew should cover people from ages 17 - 29?


----------



## MJS (Aug 13, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> According to that report the highest numbers based on age are 18 and over. The number of arrests at 16 goes up, and doesn't come back down until 30.
> 
> So perhaps the curfew should cover people from ages 17 - 29?


 
Good point.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 13, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> Granted, it's profiling.  But does that make it 'wrong'?
> 
> Or does that even make it less likely to work as intended?


The word profiling is as politically incorrect as the word niggardly, and with almost as much reasoning.


----------



## Kacey (Aug 13, 2008)

Big Don said:


> The word profiling is as politically incorrect as the word niggardly, and with almost as much reasoning.



Uh... niggardly means "cheap", and is so defined at the website you listed - so I'm having problems seeing the connection.  Perhaps this and this will help - it does _not_ have any relationship to a similar-sounding word that _is_ politically incorrect.


----------



## BrandiJo (Aug 13, 2008)

I missed the 9PM curfew. that does seem a bit excess mine was midnight and lasted till 5 am ... so not terribly long.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 13, 2008)

Kacey said:


> Uh... niggardly means "cheap", and is so defined at the website you listed - so I'm having problems seeing the connection.  Perhaps this and this will help - it does _not_ have any relationship to a similar-sounding word that _is_ politically incorrect.


That is exactly the point I was making. People assume profiling is wrong in every case, because it has been misused in a tiny portion of cases, just the way the word niggardly is misconstrued because it sounds so much like that other *N* word. Those who actually know what they are talking about don't get their pants in a twist over either. Those who don't...


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 14, 2008)

And what happens when the kid either does not have, or does not want to produce ID?

We live in a society where you do not have to carry any form of ID with you. The only reason you must produce a drivers license when stopped is because you need to prove that you are allowed to drive. It happens to be a form of ID.

Walking down the street does not require a license. My 16 yo never carries any ID with him. He doesn't have any. 

I never carry my wallet when I go for a walk around the neihbourhood.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 14, 2008)

I have mixed feelings about curfews.  They can be an effective law enforcement tool, but must be designed and enforced with reasonable common sense.  

Very simply -- and having been a kid and done it myself -- there's nothing good that can come of a high school age kid being out and about in the wee hours (say 12:00 AM to 5:00 AM), without a reason.  Coming home from work, going to work or school, even plain PT before school can be a reason.  Just "chillin' with my buddies" isn't one.  It just leads to stupidity...  Especially when parents don't know what their kids are up to.  Which is something I see all too often...

Carrying ID is a different question.  Some states do require you to carry ID and present it when questioned by the police (and this has been held to be constitutional).  In any case, it's a good idea to carry some sort of ID when out and about; a simple fall can result in unconciousness, for example, or you could get hit by a car (like your mother always warned you  )  In most US states, there is a provision to obtain a "walker's ID" or "official photo identification" even for kids.  I don't recommend this till early teens, just because things can change too much and there shouldn't be as much need...  Though there are reasons like flying where it may be a good idea.


----------



## Brian King (Aug 14, 2008)

I like the idea of curfews (and strict truancy enforcement) but then I am well beyond 18 years old. I see it as providing many tools to many users. Briefly

For the officer on the street it gives them another tool to legally interact with teens and pre teens that they see out on the streets, a chance to get to know the kids in the neighborhood and to cull out the troubled ones and see that they get the help that they need.

For the small business owner it gives them a tool to clear gangs of youths from hanging out at the front of their business without their having to engage in conflict or be the &#8220;bad guy&#8221; and put themselves or their business at further risk

For the parents it gives them a tool to help them control their children if they are having a hard time with that sort of thing. It will help parents to set a behavior standard. It will give one less thing for teens and parents to argue over and about. 

For the young people it will give the good ones another tool to help them avoid circumstances that might be compromising. The excuse of curfew can be a tool for some to use to help combat peer pressure. For the kids that are having trouble adjusting to societies norms it will be wake up call (for the young people, their parents and the authorities)

For the city it will help to identify those young people that are in danger those that may be in abusive or negligent households or situations and help to identify runaways.

Regarding carrying ID
I think it is selfish (no offense intended) for adults especially to not carry ID for the reasons that jks9199 stated. Being injured and not having ID will increase the cost of care and can make identifying and notifying family more difficult if not impossible as a couple of examples.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 14, 2008)

About 10 years or so ago, in my area, a female police officer and (as I recall) triathlete was doing a bike ride.  She got hit by a car, and the only reason she was identified was a handcuff key on her keychain.  She had no ID on her, and the officers responding to the scene realized that with a cuff key, there was a good chance she was a cop, and began making calls to the area agencies.  Had she simply carried any ID card at all, even a homemade card, time could have been saved.

For younger kids, I'd consider something like putting your phone number on the bike itself with an etching tool, for example, or nametags in helmets.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 14, 2008)

Speaking from the perspective of a law enforcement officer:

1.  If there is a high crime area with a articulable demographic committing a disproportinate number of crimes, in this case juveniles, an officer already has a reason to stop those people.  In legal terms, it is called the totality of the circumstances.  Obviously, some other things must exist for the officer to stop them, such as no nearby open businesses, furtive movements (attempting to hide objects, suddenly walking away at police approach), but really, there is a reason to stop them without a curfew.

Also, at least in California, I can detain a juvenile to place him into protective custody for their own protection.  Therefore, if I see a juvenile out at 1 am in the morning, I have every right to stop them to check on their well-being.  If I discover that they are up to no good, then I can further detain/arrest them for an investigation.  There is no need for a curfew law.

2.  Um, what country do we live in again?  I am continually amazed when people say things such as, they dont have any business out at 1am anyway.  

Really people.  This country was founded on the principles of freedom, in this context, the freedom to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  How reasonable is it to stop someone simply because of their age?  How about because they are black or hispanic?

Now, I understand that minors are not treated the same as adults.  But legally, this almost always is a matter of offering them more protection under the law then adults, not less.  In terms of voting, there is a Constitutional Amendment (the highest law of the land) that regulates that, therefore it is legal.

As a side notes:

1.  You do not have to carry ID on you at all times.  The U.S. Supreme Court says that you do not.  You only need a license if you are driving, because that is a privilage, not a right.  One can freeely travel thoughout the U.S. without driving a car.  The Hibel case used as a reference states that one only need to identify oneself in order to be in compliance with the law, not that one has to provide a documented proof of identity.  There is a big difference.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 14, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> If there is a high crime area with a articulable demographic committing a disproportinate number of crimes, in this case juveniles, an officer already has a reason to stop those people.





5-0 Kenpo said:


> How reasonable is it to stop someone simply because of their age?  How about because they are black or hispanic?



How do you reconcile these two statements?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 14, 2008)

> why would a 15yo, regardless of the day of the week, be out at 1am?


 
First of all, according to those articles, the curfew is 9 PM, not 1 AM.  And as the parent of two teenagers, neither of whom has been in trouble with the law, I can offer a lot of perfectly innocent reasons kids would be out after 9 PM:

Concert, reahearsing for a school play, watching a school play, sporting event, school band concert, charitable activities, cramming for a test at the library, studying with friends, Broadway show, job, tutoring, fencing lessons, gymnastics training, drivers ed, Grandpa's 80th birthday party, rehearsing with your garage band, watching a fireworks display, Bar Mitzvah, martial arts classes, playing Guitar Hero at a friend's house, wedding, doctor's appointment, midnight mass, science research symposium--I can keep going on and on and on. 

As for adults, well, I personally think I have the right to be out whenever I damn well please.  Two nights ago I went to see a friend play guitar at a club.  My partner is a prog rock keyboardist--he frequently comes home at 3-4 AM.  I don't get home from the dojo until 11-11:30; sometimes we go out for a beer or sandwich after training.

So is that OK with you?  

My point is, should I have to ask permission to live my honest little life?  Who gets to decide whether it's "OK" for me or my kid to come home at midnight?  You?  The mayor?  Do I have to show "proof" to that I was at the dojo? 

Or maybe I can make that decision for myself and my own kids.

And I really have to say that if you don't have any kids of your own, please don't comment on other people's "bad parenting."  It is very, VERY hard to raise kids, even good kids.  And although I'm not stupid enough to call the police about it, my teenagers frequently want to stay home from school--didn't you?


----------



## MJS (Aug 14, 2008)

CanuckMA said:


> And what happens when the kid either does not have, or does not want to produce ID?
> 
> We live in a society where you do not have to carry any form of ID with you. The only reason you must produce a drivers license when stopped is because you need to prove that you are allowed to drive. It happens to be a form of ID.
> 
> ...


 
I really don't know all the details of the curfew plan, but if I had to guess, I'd say that anyone that is stopped, and if there is reason to believe the kid is under the curfew age, he/she would get taken to the PD or whatever the pickup location is for the parents.


----------



## MJS (Aug 14, 2008)

Phoenix44 said:


> First of all, according to those articles, the curfew is 9 PM, not 1 AM. And as the parent of two teenagers, neither of whom has been in trouble with the law, I can offer a lot of perfectly innocent reasons kids would be out after 9 PM:
> 
> Concert, reahearsing for a school play, watching a school play, sporting event, school band concert, charitable activities, cramming for a test at the library, studying with friends, Broadway show, job, tutoring, fencing lessons, gymnastics training, drivers ed, Grandpa's 80th birthday party, rehearsing with your garage band, watching a fireworks display, Bar Mitzvah, martial arts classes, playing Guitar Hero at a friend's house, wedding, doctor's appointment, midnight mass, science research symposium--I can keep going on and on and on.
> 
> ...


 
Well, like I have already said a few times, but it seems to have been missed....yes, people will suffer from this, and the ones who do suffer are usually the innocent parties.  Remember my example of the DUI checkpoint?  Why am I getting stopped?  Is it fair to me?  I don't drink and drive, but I still pass thru the checkpoint and if its my number, then so be it.  Remember my shoplifting example?  People steal, stores need to recover, so prices get raised.  I pay for the jerk who doesnt.  

As I said before...not every 15 yo is a punk *** kid.  But some 15 yos will pay the price because of the bad ones.  

If you look at the link that I posted regarding the teen driving laws...it states:  11pm-5am unless the kid is traveling for a job, school, religious activity, etc.    

So if there is a legit reason, fine, then there shouldn't be an issue.  



> And I really have to say that if you don't have any kids of your own, please don't comment on other people's "bad parenting." It is very, VERY hard to raise kids, even good kids. And although I'm not stupid enough to call the police about it, my teenagers frequently want to stay home from school--didn't you?


 
Sorry, but I call it like I see it.  If that bothers you, I'm sorry.  Kids learn what they live.  Like I also said, my mother raised me for a while as a single parent.  I never ran around a store like a wild child.  Funny you should say that though.  Last Christmas, my wife and I were out shopping.  I headed out to the car, and she stayed behind to get a few more things.  While she was bending down to get something off of a bottom shelf, a kid probably all of 8, who was pushing a cart with his younger sister in it, crashed into my wifes back, knocking her to the floor.  The clueless mother, who was further ahead, simply told the kids to be more careful, not even asking how my wife was.  So again, I call it like I see it, and if it bothers you, well, I'm entitled to my opinion just like you are!  Perhaps if this clueless woman payed attention to her kid, this wouldn't have happened.  As for staying home...I didn't stay home from school for the hell of it.  I stayed home because I was sick, and didn't go out.  Hell, there're days I don't feel like going to work, but I don't call out sick every time I don't feel like going.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 15, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> How do you reconcile these two statements?


 
If the first quote is read in the context of the entire paragraph, it makes sense.

What I am saying is that one fact, race or age or sex, absent any other articulable facts, is normally insufficient to detain a person. Curfew laws violate this principle. 

Now if, based on the statistical analysist, the suspects in a particular high crime area are of a certain age, it goes to the totality of the circumstances related to my stopping of a particular individual. As I said also:



> Obviously, some other things must exist for the officer to stop them, such as no nearby open businesses, furtive movements (attempting to hide objects, suddenly walking away at police approach), but really, there is a reason to stop them without a curfew.


 

The second part that you quoted was a question to put this into context. If it is reasonable to stop, detain, and arrest one category of persons due to a characteristic, why is it not reasonable to stop others of a different characteristic. I was trying to relate the stopping of juveniles for no other reason then being a juvenile to stopping a black or hispanic person based on their race.


----------



## MJS (Aug 15, 2008)

http://www.courant.com/community/news/hfd/hc-curfew0815.artaug15,0,2131932.story


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 15, 2008)

Maybe I'd feel differently if I'd grown up someplace where there was really nothing to do after 9 PM--but I didn't.  I'm surprised that so many people who argue against big government and in favor of individual rights somehow justify the same big government dictating what hours my kids or I should be outside my home.

I can think of much better, and fairer, ways to reduce crime than by putting 100% of the population on house arrest.

Chicago instituted some very effective measures that yielded a 25% drop in murders in its highest crime areas (housing projects, gang territories)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec05/chicago_8-17.html 

1.  Cameras on top of light poles
2.  Increased use of traffic stops in high crime areas
3.  Targeted police response units
4.  Preventing handguns from entering the city
5.  Keeping closer watch on ex-felons
6.  Participation of community groups


----------



## Ninjamom (Aug 15, 2008)

Phoenix44 said:


> ........I'm surprised that so many people who argue against big government and in favor of individual rights somehow justify the same big government dictating what hours my kids or I should be outside my home....


 
So far, I don't think anyone on any side of the political fence has argued that Government should tell *you* anything.

The argument has been made (and I agree with it) that government *can* dictate what unemancipated minors can and can't do.  Minors do not have the same rights as adults, nor should they.

However, even in cases of curfews for youths, your rights as a parent trump the state's rights.  So, if you (the parent) are with your child, that automatically gives your child 'legitimate reason' for being wherever, whenever.


----------



## MJS (Aug 15, 2008)

Phoenix44 said:


> Maybe I'd feel differently if I'd grown up someplace where there was really nothing to do after 9 PM--but I didn't. I'm surprised that so many people who argue against big government and in favor of individual rights somehow justify the same big government dictating what hours my kids or I should be outside my home.


 
IIRC, it was mentioned already on here...if people are not doing anything bad, they really don't have anything to worry about.  Like I've said a few times, its the bad apples that ruin the bunch.  I know you listed a few reasons for people to be out.  But again, there is a purpose and I'd be willing to bet that many just may be going from point A to point B.  Ex: From a school function to home.  I'm still hardpressed to find a good reason why a 13yo should be outside hanging out, at 3am.  BTW, you need to remember that not everyone shares your views.  Is it right for a neighbor, who is trying to get sleep, is woken up at 3am because the people who live next door allow their kids to play in the backyard at that hour, yelling, playing, etc.?  

Also keep in mind, that the crime in this case, tends to be focused on certain high crime areas.  



> I can think of much better, and fairer, ways to reduce crime than by putting 100% of the population on house arrest.
> 
> Chicago instituted some very effective measures that yielded a 25% drop in murders in its highest crime areas (housing projects, gang territories)
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec05/chicago_8-17.html
> ...


 
1) The city where I work actually has done this.  Not sure about other large cities though.  Not a bad idea at all.  Of course, to be as effective as possible, someone should monitor them.  Itd be ideal if someone saw a crime in progress, was able to get the cops there and make an arrest.

2) Agreed.  Of course I can just hear certain people and/or groups now, crying foul because of this.  I'm sure someone would mention profiling.

3) Many PDs already have these.  They do work.

4) The dream and goal of every large city I'm sure, however, I'd imagine that would be pretty difficult.

5) Agreed again.  I'm all for stiffer penalties against repeat offenders.  Of coruse again, you're going to have the bleeding hearts to start talking about how thats not fair, treatment, etc.

6) Many cities already have these.  They do work, and people calling in tips have resulted in some good arrests.


----------



## MJS (Aug 15, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> So far, I don't think anyone on any side of the political fence has argued that Government should tell *you* anything.
> 
> The argument has been made (and I agree with it) that government *can* dictate what unemancipated minors can and can't do. Minors do not have the same rights as adults, nor should they.
> 
> However, even in cases of curfews for youths, your rights as a parent trump the state's rights. So, if you (the parent) are with your child, that automatically gives your child 'legitimate reason' for being wherever, whenever.


 
Taken from the article:

"Across the street, Alexis Ordonez, 12, who was playing on the sidewalk with his parents, which is allowed"

In this case, just as you mention, this 12yo wouldn't be bothered.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Aug 15, 2008)

First taken from my own experience as a youth.  Walking home from a friends  home after a study group I was randomly stopped by police simply because I was walking at an odd hour according to police. I was stopped and interrogated for over an hour , only 30 feet from my front door. Beside the questions some poking with flashlights and heavy handed handling while they frisked me occurred. I had done nothing wrong, was not drinking , and as I said before was 30 feet from my front door when stopped, all because the police felt like enforcing a local ordinance. Complaints to the police the next day by my parents only got a  he was out after hours response.

Perhaps more police presence both on foot and in patrol cars is needed in high crime areas.  Stopping groups and individuals that seem to be trying to avoid police is more of an answer than stopping those that just appear to be under age. Reckless driving, speeding, or overly cautious overly slow driving might be indicators of something amiss with the driver, but to just stop all who have a young look is targeting and should not be allowed


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 15, 2008)

Personally, I think that most of you are looking at this in the wrong context.  You are looking at it from a personal point of view.  For instance, you dont think kids need to be out, so they shouldnt.  Or, if the parents were doing their job, then the kids wouldnt be outside at that time.

Quite honestly, none of that has anything to do with it.  On top of that, in order for the police to be actually effective, rather than having a mere feel-good law on the books, law enforcement already has the tools that they need in this context.

Let me tell you how I view this:

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution secures that people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.  In this amendment, it does not say anything about only those persons 18 years of age and older get this right.  And, this amendment has long been constitutionally upheld to include juveniles.

Question:  How constitutionally reasonable is it to detain and arrest someone, anyone, when no particular acts of wrongdoing can be seen? In other words, is it reasonable to stop a 15 year old walking down the street at 1am without evidence that that person is committing a crime against a person or property?  Whose mere presence alone is a crime?

Now, I understand about the fear of involvement in criminal activities amongst that age group is high.  But let me give you a logical extension of this:  

In a particular neighborhood, the vast majority of crimes are committed by black males.  Therefore, the city enacts an ordinance stating that due to the high crime rate, black males can be stopped for not other reason then being outside between the hours of 10pm and 5 am.  

Would this be acceptable to you???


Again, because in this country we recognize that those under 18 are typically unable to fully care for themselves, it is reasonable for an officer to stop and check on a juvenile based on age alone in order to check on their well-being. And, if during that stop, the police find evidence of a crime, they can take further legal steps.  So in effect, this curfew law doesnt really give a cop who knows what he is doing any further powers, other then to take someones freedoms away for thier mere presence.

Oh, and another thing you all might not be recognizing.  The police can talk to anyone.  I can even suspect a crime and go talk to the person I believe is a suspect.  It is called a consensual encounter.  It happens all the time, and good police officers use it as a means to detering crime.  

Curfew laws are for lazy cops and city council members who dont want to do their jobs properly.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 15, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Let me tell you how I view this:
> 
> The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution secures that people have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.  In this amendment, it does not say anything about only those persons 18 years of age and older get this right.  And, this amendment has long been constitutionally upheld to include juveniles.
> 
> Question:  How constitutionally reasonable is it to detain and arrest someone, anyone, when no particular acts of wrongdoing can be seen? In other words, is it reasonable to stop a 15 year old walking down the street at 1am without evidence that that person is committing a crime against a person or property?  Whose mere presence alone is a crime?


This is the problem with any status offense; it makes a particular status, being a juvenile in this case, an offense all by itself. 


> Again, because in this country we recognize that those under 18 are typically unable to fully care for themselves, it is reasonable for an officer to stop and check on a juvenile based on age alone in order to check on their well-being. And, if during that stop, the police find evidence of a crime, they can take further legal steps.  So in effect, this curfew law doesnt really give a cop who knows what he is doing any further powers, other then to take someones freedoms away for thier mere presence.


One thing a curfew law does do is give police something to do with those kids.  Curfew laws generally define where a kid is to be taken when found out late, whether that's returned home or taken to someplace where the parents are contacted and required to pick them up.  


> Oh, and another thing you all might not be recognizing.  The police can talk to anyone.  I can even suspect a crime and go talk to the person I believe is a suspect.  It is called a consensual encounter.  It happens all the time, and good police officers use it as a means to detering crime.


Consensual encounters are a great tool, and I really do wonder just what lesson it seems I missed when I see younger officers who have apparently found a GO that says they can't get out of the car and can't just talk to people...  Heck, I've gotten some great arrests by just chatting with someone!


> Curfew laws are for lazy cops and city council members who dont want to do their jobs properly.



This is something I can definitely agree with; they look like you're doing something, but really never produce much.


----------



## Ninjamom (Aug 15, 2008)

For those interested in the constitutionality of juvenile curfews from the point-of-view of the Federal courts, I found an excellent review article in the May 05 issue of Harvard Law Review, here.

It is long and detailed, but covers all the usual arguments, pro and con.  The punchline: the Supreme Court has never directly ruled on their constitutionality, but has let several lower court rulings allowing curfews stand.  The Federal District court rulings are wide-ranging and inconsistent (surprise!).


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 19, 2008)

> So far, I don't think anyone on any side of the political fence has argued that Government should tell *you* anything.
> 
> The argument has been made (and I agree with it) that government *can* dictate what unemancipated minors can and can't do.


 
Actually, that argument has been made. (Check the posts on 8/13 10:08 AM and 10:11 AM)


----------



## MJS (Aug 20, 2008)

Phoenix44 said:


> Actually, that argument has been made. (Check the posts on 8/13 10:08 AM and 10:11 AM)


 
Well, lets take a look at things.  In the 8-13, 10:08 post, I linked an article of something that is different but has a similar tone to it.  As for Andrews post, I'm not going to comment on his thoughts.  If you want to know his views on his posts, you can ask him.

What this comes down to is: a) the fact that everyone, yes, even the good kids, will ultimately suffer because of the actions of a few wild kids, b) that no matter what happens, someone will be upset, and c) no matter what the cops do, people will blame them, rather than take responsibility for their own actions.  I can just hear it now.  You seem to have no problem with your kids being out late, so God forbid something happens, I'd be willing to bet that you'd be the first one to say, "Why didn't the cops do their job and protect the public?"  See, thats the problem...any parent in their right mind, wouldn't let their 12 yo kid be out at 3am.  

And don't lump me into any political groups.  Frankly, I am not interested in politics, and I rarely get involved in any political discussion on this forum.  I'm simply saying that people piss and moan with the solutions the city comes up with, but I don't see any of the big talkers coming up with an alternative.  Well, actually, you gave a few options, and I did comment on them.  But lets take another look at them and perhaps you'll give some feedback.

The cameras...like I said, a good idea.  But, is someone going to be watching them and get a cop there to arrest people that're engaged in criminal activity?  More traffic stops...well, we already know people will cry foul over that one.  Prevent guns from entering the city....ok..I"d like to hear more on this one.

What really needs to happen is stiffer penalties especially for repeat offenders.  Oh but then you'll have people cry that jail isnt the answer...its rehab thats needed.  And perhaps if parents took a bit more responsibility for the kids that THEY created, and kept a tighter leash on them, we wouldn't need a curfew.


----------



## jkembry (Aug 20, 2008)

MJS said:


> And perhaps if parents took a bit more responsibility for the kids that THEY created, and kept a tighter leash on them, we wouldn't need a curfew.



This is the issue....responsible parents.  I have no kids...mainly because of this.  I am very selfish with my time (wife feels the same way) and the time I spend with my wife.  Children would take a lot of time that my wife and I were not ready to give up in order to raise them right and to be responsible for them until their majority.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 20, 2008)

Kids wandering the streets in the wee hours is a recipe for crime. I wish my area had one.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 20, 2008)

MJS said:


> Hartford, CT. has, for quite some time, had a serious issue with violence and drugs. Now, this is nothing new, especially in a large cities. In an effort to curb this violence, the city has put a curfew for kids 18 and younger into effect. I'm going to post a few articles for reference.
> 
> http://www.courant.com/news/local/statewire/hc-11160616.apds.m0467.bc-ct--hartaug11,0,4402241.story
> 
> ...





When I was in High School, there was a curfew in effect technically. In actuality it was there only if you were caught doing something wrong or if the police wanted a reason to pull a person over. The curfew was 11:00 PM for 16 and younger and 12 Midnight for 17. 

I know for school dances sometimes if I gave people rides home in my van then I would not get home until after 1:00 AM even if the dance got out at 11:30 PM or 12 Midnight. The distances involved just meant there was time on the road going down farm roads or two lane roads taking people home. 

There were times when we would go to a movie on the weekend and it would be a late movie. We would then get something to eat to make sure we were not on the road from 2 to 3 AM and then we would go home. But, even without cell phones our parents knew where we were and could find us.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 21, 2008)

OK, this is one of those topics where there is no easy answer.  To me it is good to have the law on the books so if as the police you come across a group of kids that are acting like they are up to no good or it's not safe for them to be out you have something to take them home and get them off of the streets.

One of the other posts reminded me of this that I got sent today.







Kind of sums up to me why curfews are a good idea


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 21, 2008)

punisher73 said:


> To me it is good to have the law on the books so if as the police you come across a group of kids that are acting like they are up to no good or it's not safe for them to be out you have something to take them home and get them off of the streets.




If they are up to no good, as in committing crimes, then the law is unnecessary.

If the law is simply to give police a reason to intervene and detain them when they "might" be committing a crime later, or maybe already have but there is no evidence...  That just seems like a slippery slope.  What happens when the law gets changed to 21 and under?  Then anyone that looks 25 and under because its impossible to tell who is 21 and under based on appearance, especially late at night.  Might as well just make it a general rule, as you said, its also for their own protection.

I'm not comfortable with any law that restricts freedom to protect a person from themselves, especially when they aren't in any real danger.


----------



## MJS (Aug 21, 2008)

So, I'm at work tonight, and I take a number of calls from some city residents who live in one of the housing projects.  Now, just because someone lives there, doesnt mean they're all bad apples, but those people are lumped in with the rest.

Anyways...the complaint is that its 10:45pm and that there're a group of kids playing basketball outside and being very loud.  A few more calls come in regarding this, and then one from a resident who said that she attempted to ask them to quiet down, only to have the ball thrown at her.  Didn't hit her, as she was inside her unit.

Time goes on and more calls come in with people saying that some of the original callers actually went outside and now there was a physical fight.


Hmmm...and I have to wonder...where were the parents of the kids during all this?  Almost 11pm and people are trying to get some sleep, only to be kept awake by kids who should be in bed themselves, or at the least, in their own house.

Were they initially engaging in criminal activity?  No.  However, what good reason was there to be out at that hour?  Again, where were the parents during all this?


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 22, 2008)

MJS said:


> Anyways...the complaint is that its 10:45pm and that there're a group of kids playing basketball outside and being very loud.  A few more calls come in regarding this, and then one from a resident who said that she attempted to ask them to quiet down, only to have the ball thrown at her.  Didn't hit her, as she was inside her unit.
> 
> Time goes on and more calls come in with people saying that some of the original callers actually went outside and now there was a physical fight.
> 
> ...



Actually, at least in my jurisdiction and most of the nearby ones, they ARE committing crimes.  And that's without curfew laws...

1. Trespass; depending on where the basketball court is, they're trespassing.  Most parks close at dark, and, in VA, it's illegal to be on school property after dark unless you're there for a school activity.

2. Disturbing the peace/noise violation; they're disturbing the reasonable peace and tranquility of the community by playing basketball and making noise so late at night.

3. Assault; several possible specific charges, between the fight and throwing the ball at the house.  In fact, I could argue for a felony charge of missile at an occupied dwelling...

4. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor; for the parents AND anyone over 18 in the group, if there are kids out there.  Why?  Because they're letting the kids be in a situation that could render them delinquent (breaking the law...)

Yeah... if you know the code book, there's lots of fun things you can do to knuckleheads. 

But, to me, the key is your question: Where are the parents?


----------



## MJS (Aug 22, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Actually, at least in my jurisdiction and most of the nearby ones, they ARE committing crimes. And that's without curfew laws...
> 
> 1. Trespass; depending on where the basketball court is, they're trespassing. Most parks close at dark, and, in VA, it's illegal to be on school property after dark unless you're there for a school activity.
> 
> ...


 
1) My apologies, as I should've been a bit more clear on that.  According to one of the callers, this was one of those portable hoops.  It was moved from one location to the other.

2-4) Yup, good points, that I didn't think of.   Its good that you pointed this out however, because it seems that some in this thread keep talking about criminal activity, and I can only guess its things such as armed robbery, drugs, etc., yet here we have the things you mention. I go back to my question...where the hell are the parents?


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 22, 2008)

MJS said:


> 1) My apologies, as I should've been a bit more clear on that.  According to one of the callers, this was one of those portable hoops.  It was moved from one location to the other.
> 
> 2-4) Yup, good points, that I didn't think of.   Its good that you pointed this out however, because it seems that some in this thread keep talking about criminal activity, and I can only guess its things such as armed robbery, drugs, etc., yet here we have the things you mention. I go back to my question...where the hell are the parents?


Then, if it was in the street, we have the offense of playing in the highway (46.2-932)... 

But -- as you say, the real problem is that parents are allowing a situation like this to develop, if they're kids.  If they're young adults... it's that they were apparently never taught to respect others... so it still falls on the parents.


----------



## Andrew Green (Aug 22, 2008)

I can't claim to be fully innocent of late night basketball games when I was younger.  Never through the ball at anyone that complained though... that usually ended the game.

Somedays the only time you could play was after dark, Winnipeg can get pretty hot in the summer.

10:45 would have been nothing, after 11:00 you are expected to be a little quieter though.

But basketball?  of all the things teenagers could be doing, playing basketball is not really a major problem is it?

Parks don't close at dark either, that wouldn't make sense here, in the winter it's dark by the time a lot of people get home from work.  There may be a timed closure though, likely 11pm (possibly 9pm) but I don't think its enforced, unless there is a problem.


----------



## MJS (Aug 22, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> I can't claim to be fully innocent of late night basketball games when I was younger. Never through the ball at anyone that complained though... that usually ended the game.
> 
> Somedays the only time you could play was after dark, Winnipeg can get pretty hot in the summer.
> 
> ...


 
So because kids want to play basketball, people should have to stay awake for that?  Come on now.  Have a little respect and consideration for your neighbors.  Apparently these kids dont!  And to the point that they throw a ball at someone...come on Andrew...are you actually saying thats ok?


----------



## Mimir (Aug 22, 2008)

Being a parent, I have ask this: why are these kids's parent allowing them to be out at 1am?


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 22, 2008)

Some parents were raised as brats and are raising more brats. 

Fruit-Tree


----------



## MJS (Aug 22, 2008)

Mimir said:


> Being a parent, I have ask this: why are these kids's parent allowing them to be out at 1am?


 
This is a question that I've asked a few times myself in this thread, and I don't recall getting an answer.  Seems like the people who're against the curfew are the ones that see no issue with letting their kids stay out until all hours.  I've yet to see a reason that justifies having a young kid stay out until 1, 2 3am.



Archangel M said:


> Some parents were raised as brats and are raising more brats.
> 
> Fruit-Tree


 
Yup, just like I say, kids learn what they live.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2008)

MJS said:


> Seems like the people who're against the curfew are the ones that see no issue with letting their kids stay out until all hours.



That is false.  I don't want the government randomly stopping my kid in the street and searching them for drugs, but that doesn't mean I want my kids on drugs or wouldn't search their rooms.  Same with the curfew.  Parental action and governmental action are not the same thing.  We confuse the two at our peril.


----------



## MJS (Aug 26, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> That is false. I don't want the government randomly stopping my kid in the street and searching them for drugs, but that doesn't mean I want my kids on drugs or wouldn't search their rooms. Same with the curfew. Parental action and governmental action are not the same thing. We confuse the two at our peril.


 
Who said anything about searching them for drugs?  BTW, I still haven't seen a good reason for a 13, 14 or 15 yo to be out at 3am.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2008)

MJS said:


> Who said anything about searching them for drugs?



It was just another example to get my point across.



MJS said:


> BTW, I still haven't seen a good reason for a 13, 14 or 15 yo to be out at 3am.



Someone posted a list of something like 10 or 12 reasons.  In any case, my point would be that nothing needs to be justified to the government.  The burden should always be on the government to justify their impositions on our freedom.  I don't need a good reason to be out at 3 AM or drive through a bad neighborhood (martial law thread) in order to avoid being detained by the police.  America isn't supposed to work that way.

Again, that doesn't mean I approve of kids being out at 1 AM or I would be fine with it with my kids.  Government =! Parents.


----------



## MJS (Aug 26, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> It was just another example to get my point across.


 
Point taken, altough its not really pertaining to this thread. 





> Someone posted a list of something like 10 or 12 reasons. In any case, my point would be that nothing needs to be justified to the government. The burden should always be on the government to justify their impositions on our freedom. I don't need a good reason to be out at 3 AM or drive through a bad neighborhood (martial law thread) in order to avoid being detained by the police. America isn't supposed to work that way.
> 
> Again, that doesn't mean I approve of kids being out at 1 AM or I would be fine with it with my kids. Government =! Parents.


 
And as I said in a few other threads, the good kids will end up suffering because of the bad apples.  So, just so we're clear on this, you see nothing wrong with a 13yo being out on a Wed night at 3am?


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2008)

MJS said:


> So, just so we're clear on this, you see nothing wrong with a 13yo being out on a Wed night at 3am?



I see plenty wrong with it, barring unusual circumstances.  I just don't think it's the government's job to deal with it.


----------



## MJS (Aug 26, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I see plenty wrong with it, barring unusual circumstances. I just don't think it's the government's job to deal with it.


 
Well, first and foremost, the parents need to start stepping up.  Unfortunately, there're some that don't know how to raise their kids.  So, another question for you.  If the parents don't step up, who should, in order to keep a 13yo off the streets?  The cops, the gvt?  

Its easy for all of us, especially in these discussions, to armchair QB what should/should not be done, but a solution needs to be created.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 26, 2008)

MJS said:


> If the parents don't step up, who should, in order to keep a 13yo off the streets?  The cops, the gvt?



No one, until the kid breaks the law or appears in danger.  Thus, I would have no problem with the cops "apprehending" a four year old wandering the streets alone because she is clearly in need of some help.  13 yr olds though, not so much.


----------



## MJS (Aug 26, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I see plenty wrong with it, barring unusual circumstances. I just don't think it's the government's job to deal with it.


 


Empty Hands said:


> No one, until the kid breaks the law or appears in danger. Thus, I would have no problem with the cops "apprehending" a four year old wandering the streets alone because she is clearly in need of some help. 13 yr olds though, not so much.


 
Maybe I'm not following your logic here, and forgive me if thats the case.  But IMO, the above paragraphs contradict each other.  In the first one, you say that you see plenty wrong with it, when I asked:

_So, just so we're clear on this, you see nothing wrong with a 13yo being out on a Wed night at 3am? _

_and in the second paragraph, you're saying that you wouldn't mind it as much.  _

_So, going back to that list of reasons why someone would be out at that hour.  Ok...work...well, I highly doubt a 16yo would be working until 3am.  School function...I doubt one would go until 3am.  So, please point me to a solid reason as to why a 13yo would be out at 3am._


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 27, 2008)

MJS said:


> Maybe I'm not following your logic here, and forgive me if thats the case. But IMO, the above paragraphs contradict each other. In the first one, you say that you see plenty wrong with it, when I asked:
> 
> _So, just so we're clear on this, you see nothing wrong with a 13yo being out on a Wed night at 3am? _
> 
> ...


 

I think the point that you are choosing not to see is that it is not the responsibility of a private citizen to answer for their actions to the government, in any circumstances.

It is the responsibility of the government to answer to private citizens for their actions.

If their is criminal activity afoot, then it is the job of the government to prove their case.  Innocent until proven guilty and all that.  A person on trial need not explain themselves, hence the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Plus, as you know, a police officer can stop a child already to check on their well-being.  If, they suspect criminal activity, they can stop a child on that basis.

The question is, do we want to prosecute children in a court of law for merely being out at night.  I dont think that we do, regardless of the fact that childrens status in the eyes of the law are different than adults.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 27, 2008)

Ehhh...I dont think most curfew violations are "persecuted" as much as they are penalized through fines. Heres LA's



> Violations are punishable by a fine of $250.00 totaling $675.00 with penalty assessments, community service, and/or may affect whether you can obtain or keep a driver&#8217;s license number.



And their law provides for the following exceptions.



> Curfew laws restrict the rights of juveniles to be outdoors or in public places during certain hours of the day. Such laws aim to establish a safer community and to better protect kids from becoming victims of crime or becoming involved in delinquent behaviors. The Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) 45.03 states:
> 
> It is unlawful for any minor under the age of eighteen (18) to be present in or upon any public street, highway, road, curb area, alley, park, playground, or other public ground, public place, or public building, place of amusement or eating place, vacant lot or unsupervised place between the hours of 10 p.m. on any day and sunrise of the immediately following day; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply:
> 
> ...



In other words, your kid would have to be out wandering about with no apparent purpose. I would have to think that the fines are applied to the parents. I would love to be able to sock a juveniles parent with a fine when little johhny is out at 3 AM breaking into cars or lighing the local playground equipment on fire. The kid typically gets a slap on the wrist in Family Court and goes his merry way.


----------



## MJS (Aug 27, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I think the point that you are choosing not to see is that it is not the responsibility of a private citizen to answer for their actions to the government, in any circumstances.
> 
> It is the responsibility of the government to answer to private citizens for their actions.
> 
> ...


 
So, pretty much what you're saying is that if a kid wants to stay out all night, thats fine, and nobody should question it. Its not the job of the govt., the police or anyone else to ask why any parent with any amount of common sense, would allow their 12 yo, 13yo, etc to be out at 3am.

Unless I'm missing it, according to the articles, nobody is getting arrested.  They are being brought to a location where they can be picked up.  I don't recall seeing that they'd be brought to the PD, fingerprinted, cuffed, and thrown in a cell.  

So if a cop can do the well being check, why have the curfew at all?  I mean, either way, the cop is going to question them.  I'm assuming by your post here: 

"Plus, as you know, a police officer can stop a child already to check on their well-being. If, they suspect criminal activity, they can stop a child on that basis."

that they can stop them without any suspicion of criminal activity?  

Hey, maybe I'm the only one who wonders why any parent would allow their kid to be out, because we all know how people love to cry foul.  So imagine this...a single mothers 3 kids, ages 12, 10, and 14 are out at 3am, while she's in bed sleeping.  The kids happen to be in the wrong area at the wrong time and get mugged, beat up, kidnapped, shot, stabbed, raped, and the first thing out of this mothers mouth is, "Why weren't the police doing their job protecting the public and my kids?"


----------



## MJS (Aug 27, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Ehhh...I dont think most curfew violations are "persecuted" as much as they are penalized through fines. Heres LA's
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm sure some will still insist this is wrong and cry foul, because as its been said, kids should be able to be out and the gvt. has no right, blah, blah.  Personally, I see nothing wrong with LAs policy.  If the kid is out, with a legit reason, such as whats listed, fine.  If the kid is with a legal guardian, fine.  That, IMO, is where I think we all may be getting confused.  I'm not questioning the kids who have a legit purpose, I'm questioning the ones who are out for the sake of being out, with no purpose.  I doubt anywhere, that a minor would be allowed to work a PT job, that has hours that extend past a certain time.  Looking at this I see nothing that has them working past 12am.  While it takes time to travel back home, its a legit reason to be out.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 27, 2008)

MJS said:


> I'm sure some will still insist this is wrong and cry foul, because as its been said, kids should be able to be out and the gvt. has no right, blah, blah. Personally, I see nothing wrong with LAs policy. If the kid is out, with a legit reason, such as whats listed, fine. If the kid is with a legal guardian, fine. That, IMO, is where I think we all may be getting confused. I'm not questioning the kids who have a legit purpose, I'm questioning the ones who are out for the sake of being out, with no purpose. I doubt anywhere, that a minor would be allowed to work a PT job, that has hours that extend past a certain time. Looking at this I see nothing that has them working past 12am. While it takes time to travel back home, its a legit reason to be out.


 

You are continually trying to frame the debate in your own context, without even trying to begin to understand where the other side is coming from.  

Not a single person here said that it is ethically or morally right for children to be allowed out at 3 am.  What we are saying is that the government should not have any right to prosecute people, even children, just for being outside.

That, IMO, is where we all may be getting confused.



> So if a cop can do the well being check, why have the curfew at all? I mean, either way, the cop is going to question them. I'm assuming by your post here:
> 
> "Plus, as you know, a police officer can stop a child already to check on their well-being. If, they suspect criminal activity, they can stop a child on that basis."
> 
> that they can stop them without any suspicion of criminal activity?



I agree, why have the curfew.  It is another limit to the freedom of non-criminal persons within this country.



> Hey, maybe I'm the only one who wonders why any parent would allow their kid to be out, because we all know how people love to cry foul. So imagine this...a single mothers 3 kids, ages 12, 10, and 14 are out at 3am, while she's in bed sleeping. The kids happen to be in the wrong area at the wrong time and get mugged, beat up, kidnapped, shot, stabbed, raped, and the first thing out of this mothers mouth is, "Why weren't the police doing their job protecting the public and my kids?"


 
I hate to break it to you, but the police are under no legal obligation to protect anyones specific child.  She may cry foul, but it doesn't really matter.  

And you are not the only one to wonder such a question.  But again, I don't think that is where the confusion arises.  It is a question of the legitimate role of government and police, not whether a child should be outside at that time.

And do you think that an individuals / special interest group should be allowed to dictate government policy.  Just because it may occur, doesn't make it right.


----------



## MJS (Aug 27, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You are continually trying to frame the debate in your own context, without even trying to begin to understand where the other side is coming from.
> 
> Not a single person here said that it is ethically or morally right for children to be allowed out at 3 am. What we are saying is that the government should not have any right to prosecute people, even children, just for being outside.
> 
> That, IMO, is where we all may be getting confused.


 
Who said anything about prosecuting people?  They're picking up the kids, taking them to a location, calling the parents, and having them pick up their kids.  Again, I don't recall seeing anything on a kid being brought to jail, unless a crime was taking place.  

I understand what people are saying here.   Parents don't want anyone telling them what their kid can/can't do.  I guess I'm just curious as to what reason one could possibly have for letting a 12yo out at 3am.  If its not morally right, and you state that nobody here has said anything different, then again, why would someone condone their kid being out...if its not morally right?  

Let me ask you this.  if the kid is out at 2am, just hanging around on the sidewalk, is that loitering?  If they're on their own property in the back yard, with 6 of their friends playing and being loud, is that disturbing the peace?  If they're hanging out at the local school, is that trespassing?  Would a police officer have a right to take any action?




> I agree, why have the curfew. It is another limit to the freedom of non-criminal persons within this country.


 
And like I've said a number of times already, yes, unfortunately, the good ones will suffer for the actions of the bad ones.  





> I hate to break it to you, but the police are under no legal obligation to protect anyones specific child. She may cry foul, but it doesn't really matter.


 
Simply an example.  We see it all the time.  People love to blame others for their own faults, because they don't have the guts to admit when they're wrong.  Again, I was simply using an example that we've seen a million times.  I mean how many times have we heard people say, "Maybe if the cops were patrolling instead of sitting in their cars, (insert crime here) wouldn't have happened!"  



> And you are not the only one to wonder such a question. But again, I don't think that is where the confusion arises. It is a question of the legitimate role of government and police, not whether a child should be outside at that time.
> 
> And do you think that an individuals / special interest group should be allowed to dictate government policy. Just because it may occur, doesn't make it right.


 
But if you stop and think about it, this example of the curfew is just one of countless that the govt. is using to control what people do.  If people don't want to be told what to do, perhaps they should move to an island in the middle of nowhere, where they can be their own boss.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 27, 2008)

MJS said:


> Maybe I'm not following your logic here, and forgive me if thats the case.  But IMO, the above paragraphs contradict each other.



Not at all.  My entire argument here is pointing out a dichotomy between what I find personally wrong and what the government should find wrong and enforce by law.  For instance, I think adultery is wrong, and I also think it shouldn't be illegal.  Same here.  I wouldn't want my kid out at that time, but I don't think it is the place of the government to make that determination unless there is danger or lawbreaking involved.


----------



## MJS (Aug 27, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Not at all. My entire argument here is pointing out a dichotomy between what I find personally wrong and what the government should find wrong and enforce by law. For instance, I think adultery is wrong, and I also think it shouldn't be illegal. Same here. I wouldn't want my kid out at that time, but I don't think it is the place of the government to make that determination *unless there is danger or lawbreaking involved.*


 
Ok, thanks.   One thing that I would like you to further expand on is your last paragraph.  For reference, I put it in bold.  The reason for the curfew law, is due to the increase in violence in the city.  Every Summer it blows up, hense the reason for the State Police to come in to help.  Shootings pretty much on a daily basis.  So, IMHO, there is a big risk of danger.  Now, perhaps you or someone else may have a different view, and thats fine, but I'd have to say that a young kid being out, alone without an adult, in the city is pretty dangerous.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 27, 2008)

MJS said:


> Now, perhaps you or someone else may have a different view, and thats fine, but I'd have to say that a young kid being out, alone without an adult, in the city is pretty dangerous.



Well I must admit I was thinking of my own childhood in these responses, which is in the suburbs.  I suppose there has to be room for a reasonable compromise depending on where and what we are talking about.  Crime at its worst these days though is still a fairly unlikely event to happen to any individual.  I lived in one of the highest crime cities in America for a year, walking through and working in one of the worst areas, and I never had a problem.  A sense of balance needs to be present.


----------



## MJS (Aug 27, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Well I must admit I was thinking of my own childhood in these responses, which is in the suburbs. I suppose there has to be room for a reasonable compromise depending on where and what we are talking about. Crime at its worst these days though is still a fairly unlikely event to happen to any individual. I lived in one of the highest crime cities in America for a year, walking through and working in one of the worst areas, and I never had a problem. A sense of balance needs to be present.


 
Likewise, I didn't grow up in the city.  I feel pretty confident to say that I could walk around my town at 3am and not have to worry about getting mugged.  Could it happen?  Well, anything could happen, but the odds IMO are lower vs. the city.  Now, head about 10min north of me on the highway to where this curfew is going on...forget it.  Now, this isn't to say that crime doesn't happen in my town because it does.  However, on the same scale as the city in question...there is a huge difference.  

So, let me ask this question to everyone.  If a curfew isn't the answer because you feel that its violating some right, what would you suggest to curb the issues that are going on in the city where this curfew is in effect?


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 27, 2008)

If you look at crime trends, crime is really not "at its worst" these days. The crime rate has been relatively stable and actually decreasing over a 40 year period. What does change are crime patterns. What types of crime go up and what types go down, and where these crimes happen.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 27, 2008)

And under my states definition, all the curfew laws I have come across are not "criminal" in nature (a "crime" by definition carrys a punishment of imprisionment). These laws a local ordinance violations, they carry a fine. Pretty much the equivalent of a traffic ticket.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 27, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> And under my states definition, all the curfew laws I have come across are not "criminal" in nature (a "crime" by definition carrys a punishment of imprisionment). These laws a local ordinance violations, they carry a fine. Pretty much the equivalent of a traffic ticket.


 
This is the Conneticut penal code definition of a crime:

*Sec. 53a-24. Offense defined. Application of sentencing provisions to motor vehicle and drug selling violators.* (a) The term "offense" means any crime or violation which constitutes a breach of any law of this state or any other state, federal law or local law or ordinance of a political subdivision of this state, for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment or *to a fine*, or both, may be imposed, except one that defines a motor vehicle violation or is deemed to be an infraction. The term "crime" comprises felonies and misdemeanors. 

Here is the Hartford Ordinance Section:

Sec. 25-4. Curfew for minors.
It shall be unlawful for any child under the age of eighteen (18) years to loiter on the streets or in any theater or other public place in the city after 9:00 p.m., unless such child is accompanied by his/her parents or guardian, or other adult person into whose care and custody such child has been committed by his/her parent or guardian.

(Code 1977, § 24-5; Ord. No. 57-93, 9-16-93)

Now this:

Sec. 25-1.  Penalty.A person who violates any provision of this chapter, with the exception of a person who violates section 25-14, shall be summoned or brought to community court pursuant to P.A. 97-199. A person who is summoned or brought before the community court cannot invoke any of the appeal rights provided by section 1-5 of the Hartford Municipal Code. The superior court judge assigned to the community court may impose a penalty of community service, a fine up to ninety dollars ($90.00) or a jail sentence of up to twenty-five (25) days to any person who is convicted of violating any provision of this chapter.

It is therefore a crime, with a penalty attached.  Whether the police department chooses to ask for the penalty portion or not, is irrellevant to the defining of a curfew violation being a crime.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 27, 2008)

MJS said:


> Who said anything about prosecuting people? They're picking up the kids, taking them to a location, calling the parents, and having them pick up their kids. Again, I don't recall seeing anything on a kid being brought to jail, unless a crime was taking place.


 
The municipal code section that I cited said that they could prosecute.  That is a crime for just being outside.



> I understand what people are saying here. Parents don't want anyone telling them what their kid can/can't do. I guess I'm just curious as to what reason one could possibly have for letting a 12yo out at 3am. If its not morally right, and you state that nobody here has said anything different, then again, why would someone condone their kid being out...if its not morally right?


 
It is not about whether parents want other people telling their children what to do.  It is about whether the *government *has a right to detain their children, transport them anywhere, possibly issue them a citation associated with a penalty, *all for just being outside after a certain time.*



> Let me ask you this. if the kid is out at 2am, just hanging around on the sidewalk, is that loitering? If they're on their own property in the back yard, with 6 of their friends playing and being loud, is that disturbing the peace? If they're hanging out at the local school, is that trespassing? Would a police officer have a right to take any action?


 
Yes, but that does not mean it is a crime.

If a person makes a compaint, then yes.

If school is out, and there are laws against it, yes.

Disturbing the peace is a crime, and so is trespassing.  So yes, a police officer would be able to take action.




> And like I've said a number of times already, yes, unfortunately, the good ones will suffer for the actions of the bad ones.


 
And the question is, is that the right action.  Suppose this situation.  Kid just got into an argument with his parents and take a walk around the block to cool off.  Say this occurs around 10pm.  The police see him and arrest him.

So now, we got a good kid trying to cool off, and we penalize him for it.  




> But if you stop and think about it, this example of the curfew is just one of countless that the govt. is using to control what people do. If people don't want to be told what to do, perhaps they should move to an island in the middle of nowhere, where they can be their own boss.


[/QUOTE]

No one is saying that the government should not stop people from injuring others.  But what is the injuryto a kid walking around the block, going to their friends home, playing basketball in the park, even though it occurs at 9:30pm.


----------



## MJS (Aug 28, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> The municipal code section that I cited said that they could prosecute. That is a crime for just being outside.


 
I highly doubt they'll bring the kid to jail, and I say this because I've seen records of criminals who have done far worse crimes than being out past a certain amount of time, get nollied, when one would think, that after doing the same crime 10 times, they'd be in jail.  





> It is not about whether parents want other people telling their children what to do. It is about whether the *government *has a right to detain their children, transport them anywhere, possibly issue them a citation associated with a penalty, *all for just being outside after a certain time.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm quoting both parts here even though they're for 2 seperate questions.  When I asked if it was a crime to be on school grounds if the school is closed, you said, yes, if there is a law against it.  Therefore, if there is a law against kids under a certain age being out, then yes, wouldn't the gvt. have the right?






> And the question is, is that the right action. Suppose this situation. Kid just got into an argument with his parents and take a walk around the block to cool off. Say this occurs around 10pm. The police see him and arrest him.
> 
> So now, we got a good kid trying to cool off, and we penalize him for it.


 
And in the meantime, if the parents call the police to report a domestic, the kid is going to get picked up either way.  However, you're right, yes, a good kid would end up suffering.  Par for the course, just like we have to pay the price for people that shoplift, and run various scams.  The good people pay the price because the dirtbags don't want to play by the book.





> No one is saying that the government should not stop people from injuring others. But what is the injuryto a kid walking around the block, going to their friends home, playing basketball in the park, even though it occurs at 9:30pm.


 
Hmm..I recall in another post, someone mentioned:

"4. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor; for the parents AND anyone over 18 in the group, if there are kids out there. Why? Because they're letting the kids be in a situation that could render them delinquent (breaking the law...)"

BTW, I'm still interested in hearing a reply to this question I asked a few posts back:



> So, let me ask this question to everyone. If a curfew isn't the answer because you feel that its violating some right, what would you suggest to curb the issues that are going on in the city where this curfew is in effect?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 28, 2008)

MJS said:


> I highly doubt they'll bring the kid to jail, and I say this because I've seen records of criminals who have done far worse crimes than being out past a certain amount of time, get nollied, when one would think, that after doing the same crime 10 times, they'd be in jail.


 
I wouldn't want to rely on your "highly doubt" hypothesis.  

You are also talking about a situation which has recieved an inordinate amount of public scrutiny, about which the police and city management feel the need to do something about.  Just because they don't do anything about adults who do something, does not mean that the same will apply to these childrens.




> I'm quoting both parts here even though they're for 2 seperate questions. When I asked if it was a crime to be on school grounds if the school is closed, you said, yes, if there is a law against it. Therefore, if there is a law against kids under a certain age being out, then yes, wouldn't the gvt. have the right?


 
You are right.  What I am debating here is that there should not even be a curfew law.  If they have one, I fully expect that they will enforce it.

And the only reason I say "if there is a law against it" is that a school is not public property, even though it is owned by the city.  Often, there must be "No Tresspassing" signs posted in conspicuous places in order for it to be actually illegal as well. 




> And in the meantime, if the parents call the police to report a domestic, the kid is going to get picked up either way. However, you're right, yes, a good kid would end up suffering. Par for the course, just like we have to pay the price for people that shoplift, and run various scams. The good people pay the price because the dirtbags don't want to play by the book.


 
I don't understand you point about if the parents call the police to report a domestic.  How is that pertinent to this discussion?  

I may pay the price for people shoplifting, but that is in the prices that I pay at a *private business*.  Plus, I don't lose my freedom because someone else shoplifts, which interestingly enough, is ironic.  You are saying that a minor who does nothing more the be outside after a certain time be punished via the criminal justice system *for the crimes other people commit.*





> Hmm..I recall in another post, someone mentioned:
> 
> "4. Contributing to the delinquency of a minor; for the parents AND anyone over 18 in the group, if there are kids out there. Why? Because they're letting the kids be in a situation that could render them delinquent (breaking the law...)"


 
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.




> BTW, I'm still interested in hearing a reply to this question I asked a few posts back:


 
Easy answer.  Directed enforcement related to the high crime areas and specific people actually committing, or suspected of committing violent crime. 

Even though minors may be proportionately more affected because that is the demographic committing the crime, this will not affect, without the reasonable suspicion required by law, non-criminal minors.

What I find remarkable, however, is that this law (or its current enforcement) is not even designed to arrest/detain criminals.  According to the article, it is designed to keep children off the street so that they cannot become victim's of crime.  So really, the targeted demographic are the victim's twice, once for the violent crime, and second for the enforced curfew due to the violent crime.

It reminds me of the fact that here in my city, if your car is stolen, it is often towed to the city tow yard.  All of the towage and storage costs are then incurred by the victim of the theft.  How about that for justice.


----------



## MJS (Aug 29, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I wouldn't want to rely on your "highly doubt" hypothesis.
> 
> You are also talking about a situation which has recieved an inordinate amount of public scrutiny, about which the police and city management feel the need to do something about. Just because they don't do anything about adults who do something, does not mean that the same will apply to these childrens.


 
Given the high crime rate in the city, I still stand by my comment.  And one would think, given the high attention this situation is getting, that if someone was arrested, you would think it would say in the paper.   




> You are right. What I am debating here is that there should not even be a curfew law. If they have one, I fully expect that they will enforce it.
> 
> And the only reason I say "if there is a law against it" is that a school is not public property, even though it is owned by the city. Often, there must be "No Tresspassing" signs posted in conspicuous places in order for it to be actually illegal as well.


 
The curfew law isa 30 day trial.  It'll be interesting to see the results and what happens after the 30 days.





> I don't understand you point about if the parents call the police to report a domestic. How is that pertinent to this discussion?


 
You said:

"And the question is, is that the right action. Suppose this situation. Kid just got into an argument with his parents and take a walk around the block to cool off. Say this occurs around 10pm. The police see him and arrest him."

To which I replied:

"And in the meantime, if the parents call the police to report a domestic, the kid is going to get picked up either way. However, you're right, yes, a good kid would end up suffering."

My point was good kid or not, he'd still be picked up by the police.  




> I may pay the price for people shoplifting, but that is in the prices that I pay at a *private business*. Plus, I don't lose my freedom because someone else shoplifts, which interestingly enough, is ironic. You are saying that a minor who does nothing more the be outside after a certain time be punished via the criminal justice system *for the crimes other people commit.*




Is there a lgeit reason for the kid to be out?  If the kid was coming home from work, a school activity, with a parent, etc., then no, nothing should happen.  There is a legit reason.  Just being out for the sake of being out at 3am, to hang out on the street corner, to hang in front of a business.  Come on.  So now you could have an elderly person or a female who could feel intimidated by this group, which now causes the store to lose business.  







> I don't understand what you are trying to say here.


 
I'm assuming you've read this entire thread before jumping in?  The post I quoted was made by someone who commented on something I said about an incident that happened in the city that I work for.  Here, let me point you to the posts in question.  Here, and here.  I would think that as a LEO, you're familiar with ways to get around things.   I mean, you see a car, that you know is being driven by a known drug dealer.  But to pull him over for no reason...well, we know that isn't right.  So you drive behind and wait until he fails to signal for a turn.  There is your reason to pull him over, get a look in the car, etc.  But I don't think I need to be saying this.  





> Easy answer. Directed enforcement related to the high crime areas and specific people actually committing, or suspected of committing violent crime.
> 
> Even though minors may be proportionately more affected because that is the demographic committing the crime, this will not affect, without the reasonable suspicion required by law, non-criminal minors.
> 
> What I find remarkable, however, is that this law (or its current enforcement) is not even designed to arrest/detain criminals. According to the article, it is designed to keep children off the street so that they cannot become victim's of crime. So really, the targeted demographic are the victim's twice, once for the violent crime, and second for the enforced curfew due to the violent crime.


 
Thank you!  Now we're getting somewhere!   I think the idea of special groups to focus on problem areas are great and they actually do work too!  



> It reminds me of the fact that here in my city, if your car is stolen, it is often towed to the city tow yard. All of the towage and storage costs are then incurred by the victim of the theft. How about that for justice.


 
That happens where I work as well.  And yes it does suck that the victim has to pay the price 2 times...once for the loss/damage to the car and second for the tow fees.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 29, 2008)

What are you in for kid?

Curfew violation.



Juveniles in my state dont face imprisonment short of a major felony. Juveniles cant even be issued summons, the parents are.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 30, 2008)

MJS said:


> Given the high crime rate in the city, I still stand by my comment. And one would think, given the high attention this situation is getting, that if someone was arrested, you would think it would say in the paper.


 
Not necessarily.  The news services are not the most acurate and infomative sources.




> The curfew law isa 30 day trial. It'll be interesting to see the results and what happens after the 30 days.


 
 Actually, the curfew has been in effect since 1993.

Sec. 25-4.  Curfew for minors.
It shall be unlawful for any child under the age of eighteen (18) years to loiter on the streets or in any theater or other public place in the city after 9:00 p.m., unless such child is accompanied by his/her parents or guardian, or other adult person into whose care and custody such child has been committed by his/her parent or guardian.

(Code 1977, § 24-5; Ord. No. 57-93, *9-16-93*)


It seems to me that this is just their novel way of enforcing it to hopefully solve a problem.





> Is there a lgeit reason for the kid to be out? If the kid was coming home from work, a school activity, with a parent, etc., then no, nothing should happen. There is a legit reason. Just being out for the sake of being out at 3am, to hang out on the street corner, to hang in front of a business. Come on. So now you could have an elderly person or a female who could feel intimidated by this group, which now causes the store to lose business.


 
 Since when is the law supposed to be about arresting people because others may feel intimidated.

I know a particular group that might feel intimidated when black people come around.  Should we have a law against that?




> I'm assuming you've read this entire thread before jumping in? The post I quoted was made by someone who commented on something I said about an incident that happened in the city that I work for. Here, let me point you to the posts in question. Here, and here. I would think that as a LEO, you're familiar with ways to get around things.  I mean, you see a car, that you know is being driven by a known drug dealer. But to pull him over for no reason...well, we know that isn't right. So you drive behind and wait until he fails to signal for a turn. There is your reason to pull him over, get a look in the car, etc. But I don't think I need to be saying this.


 
Yes I did.  And, even absent a curfew law, there are many reasons to stop people, including juveniles.  One can even stop them, just as you can adults, to check on their well-being based on articulitable facts.

But again, I do not see how you justify detaining and arresting (a citation is an arrest) someone because they cannot give you a legitimate reason(whatever that may be) to be out.




> Thank you! Now we're getting somewhere!  I think the idea of special groups to focus on problem areas are great and they actually do work too!


 
Exactly.  That is why this type of action should be taken.  Not some indiscriminate law based on simple fear.


----------



## MJS (Aug 30, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not necessarily. The news services are not the most acurate and infomative sources.


 
Well, I agree with you on that.  





> Actually, the curfew has been in effect since 1993.
> 
> Sec. 25-4. Curfew for minors.
> It shall be unlawful for any child under the age of eighteen (18) years to loiter on the streets or in any theater or other public place in the city after 9:00 p.m., unless such child is accompanied by his/her parents or guardian, or other adult person into whose care and custody such child has been committed by his/her parent or guardian.
> ...


 
Hmm...I guess I must've missed the 1993 part.  Interesting though, that a law thats been on the books for all this time, and they're picking now to really be a stickler on enforcing it.  







> Since when is the law supposed to be about arresting people because others may feel intimidated.
> 
> I know a particular group that might feel intimidated when black people come around. Should we have a law against that?


 
With all due respect, I think that you're twisting my words to suit your purpose.  I think you fully know what I meant.






> Yes I did. And, even absent a curfew law, there are many reasons to stop people, including juveniles. One can even stop them, just as you can adults, to check on their well-being based on articulitable facts.
> 
> But again, I do not see how you justify detaining and arresting (a citation is an arrest) someone because they cannot give you a legitimate reason(whatever that may be) to be out.


 
Well, like I said, then whats the sense of having the law?  I mean, if anyone can be stopped at any time, then its simply just a matter of the cops being more strict during their patrols.  See a kid out at 3am, stop, well being check, etc. less the curfew law and taking them into custody.  Of course, knowing how some people are, they'd still cry foul and say that the cops are just harrassing them.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  Stop the kid and you're violating the rights.  Don't stop the kid and you're not doing your job.  Go figure.  






> Exactly. That is why this type of action should be taken. Not some indiscriminate law based on simple fear.


 
Yup


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 30, 2008)

MJS said:


> With all due respect, I think that you're twisting my words to suit your purpose. I think you fully know what I meant.


 
Not trying to twist your words, only trying to give you a perspective of why some people feel the way that they do regarding these laws.

When we start to select out specific classes of people for attention that merely amount to controlling there whereabouts, that it can be taken to ridiculous extremes.  

And in the history of the governments of the world, are we to trust that they would be so benevolent?

And remember, I am a part of that system.  Yet I still retain a healthy skepticism about it.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 30, 2008)

The Harvard Review has a very interesting analysis of Juvenile Curfew Law.

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/118/May05/Notes/Juvenile_CurfewsFTX.pdf

At its core it says that the federal circuits have had difficulty coming to a concensus (shocking) in regards to these laws. They have a long history in the country, by the end of the 19th century they were commonplace. There are numerous issues regarding the rights of children. There are already various laws that limit the rights of juveniles (alcohol, pornorgraphy possession, etc) and the feds have had difficulty balancing (balancing is a legal term that involves individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution weighed against state rights such as public safety, protection of vulnerable persons etc.) the right involved. The federal courts have upheld some of these laws and shot others down. The Dallas curfew is held as the "gold standard" in regards to the court and their balancing tests.

Heres Dallas's Ordinance.



> The following is the text of Dallas, Tex.&#8217;s curfew ordinance. Since it passed strict scrutiny from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1993, it is provided as an illustration of what local government leaders may consider when drafting a curfew ordinance. Local leaders should contact their city attorneys prior to taking any action. All local governments should list the reasons for curfew adoption either in legislative history or specifically in the ordinance.
> 
> MUNICIPAL CODE SEC. 31-33 CURFEW HOURS FOR MINORS
> 
> ...


----------



## MJS (Sep 4, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not trying to twist your words, only trying to give you a perspective of why some people feel the way that they do regarding these laws.
> 
> When we start to select out specific classes of people for attention that merely amount to controlling there whereabouts, that it can be taken to ridiculous extremes.
> 
> ...


 
Ya know, no matter what happens, someone will be upset, someone will be a target, nobody will be happy.  Think about it, if a high crime area is the focus of the PD, with them doing a more intensive crackdown in the area, chances are, certain people will feel like they have a target on them.  

As for the individual views on this...we all have our own opinions, and right or wrong, we should respect them.  I stand by mine.  For a parent to allow a young child to be out with no purpose, isn't right IMO.  Are these parents going to take responsibility for any and all actions that their child does, or will they try to pass the blame to someone else?  I don't think that answer will be hard to find.


----------

