Curfews For Teens: Are They The Answer?

[RandomPhantom700]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

.......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?...

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...