Posted on 11/19/2004 8:20:07 AM PST by JesseHousman
I don't agree. The curfew has everything to do with deterring crime. The kids are in public places, hence an issue for governmental authority. Kids in public schools are subject to government authority while there. Kids being schooled at home are not in public places with the potential for crime and mayhem, so there is no basis for that level of control.
For the state to exert some control over when and where minors may gather/loiter/waste away in public is not a huge deal; they're still only affecting public places. (Although this does raise the question of how the state can dictate who may or may not gather/loiter on private (business) property away from their homes.) When the state intrudes into our homes to dictate what is taught there, we have one serious issue to combat.
So why not curfews for adults?
is there overall opinion here that the government should set curfews for kids?
i think thats interesting. i think the government should mind their own business.
Because minors and adults have different rights. (As I covered in earlier posts.) Adults have many more legitimate reasons to be out and about in the middle of the night. As a past police officer, I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that youth get into much more trouble on the town late at night than adults do.
As a former police officer, maybe you are aware that the majority of crimes committed by minors occurs from roughly 3pm to 6pm. Why not a curfew then?
Telling people they must be off the streets when they're not doing anything wrong is a prescription for a police state. If you encounter someone actually breaking the law, cite or arrest them.
Otherwise, it's none of your business, no matter what their age. Minority Report indeed.
I do keep my kids home at night because we live in a high crime city, however it is MY decision and not the state's.
In this case, that is akin to suggesting that children of any age should be able to drive a car or carry a concealed weapon. After all, the law should only do something about it if and when they break the law, right?
The rights of youth are curtailed for good reason. Many centuries of experience in our culture has lead to this situation. It isn't some insidious police-state trying to take over the planet, it's responsible adults -- voters --proactively reining in kids who aren't being appropriately limited, for whatever reason, by their parents.
There is such a thing as unfettered liberty; it's called anarchy. The majority of US citizens don't want that.
In other words, "it takes a village" right? Obviously, we will continue to disagree.
But I still can't fathom why anyone would think they should or could have such choices over other people's kids. If a parent wants to let their kids see a late movie, a late concert, or just hang out in a Taco Bell parking lot that's their business, not yours.
Only when the parents abdicate their duties. If they do, then the village has the choice of administering some control or forfeiting the peace and order of its people.
This law is subject to the same system as any other: If the majority of parents don't want their kids subject to a curfew, they should move to have the law repealed.
How is allowing a 16-year-old to go the late movie or a concert abdicating any kind of parental duty?
The kid is doing nothing wrong and not breaking any laws. The parent knows where the kid is & what he/she is doing. Both parties are fine with the arrangement. No one is being harmed or effected.
Law-abiding people deserve to be left alone.
So are you saying it's ok if Denny's bans someone but not ok for the government to ban someone?
You are so right about that!! "Other assorted liberal weirdos" could include the United Nations.
It may not make you feel any better about it, but it's been my experience that these laws are only enforced at the disgression of the police officer anyway. They're rather like traffic laws requiring you to use your turn signal, dim your lights within a certain distance, etc..: Officers use them at their disgression, when the situation otherwise requires some action. Personally, I never stopped anyone coming out of the late movie because it was past curfew. I did use the law to break up noisy crowds of kids loitering for hours in parking lots on school nights. The warning of a curfew violation was (usually) enough to get them to go home, and that's the whole point, IMO.
The interesting thing to me is that I'm guessing you are vehemently against judicial activism in other cases, yet this article is about judicial activism against a properly enacted law. Why are you seemingly defending this practice when it favors your view? ...or do I misunderstand your stance on this?
You're right. The police usually use this curfew to stop teenagers involved in disruptive and/or criminal behavior.
In Miami-Dade, it was common for teenage groups to hang out late around the streets leading to the main airport, throwing broken glass into the street to cause flat tires, as well as rock throwing to passing vehicles. (I myself witness such behavior while driving home from the airport)
After the curfew was instituted, the teenage gangs disappeared. Since it is very difficult to identify the perp out of a group, cops will usually ask the wannabe hoodlums to observe the curfew and go home. I hope the Miami-Dade curfew is not challenged by the ACLU.
Yes. Private property owners are free to discriminate in a lot of ways the government isn't.
My profile page is a test as to whether you have a sense of humor or not.
You failed.
If the private property owner wants them gone, you don't need a curfew law to get them out of there. Trespass laws would work just fine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.