I'm trying not to be cynical, that's not who I am but most kids aren't like who you were, unfortunately. As for your second point, should we just let bad parents let their kids become bad people, it is more important that the kids of today become better people.


In most of the country its 18, and I'm pretty sure that Kentucky it isn't nessesary to have a curfew anyway. It depends on where you live. I think you guys are talking about permits, but don't you need an adult with you to drive with a permit.
CP

The short answer is, 'NO! Of course not!'

But, again, it depends on the area in question. If the community is replete with vandalism which no one is able to control, my 'right' to allow my responsible children out after 11 PM might arguably be secondary to the community's right to protection of property.

You're merely assuming most kids aren't that way, Conservpat. As I've already brought up in two previous posts, what you are doing is profiling. Your position is essentially one of holding people as guilty of a crime solely based on their age. If you can describe it as anything else, please do.

Until you can, though, it is no better than the racial profiling that is both illegal and detested throughout this country and the world. I doubt you would apply a curfew or any specialized laws as to when black males could be outside -- because some statistics may show them to be more violent than other groups -- yet you don't seem to hesitate to do that very thing when discussing people under the age of eighteen.

If they're bad kids, charge 'em with a real crime that they are guilty of. To have a law allowing the arrest of a person whose only crime is being outside is ridiculous, and should be illegal.

Do you think that most kids are inherently bad?

I don't. I think that most kids are inherently good, and there are a few bad apples in the bunch. Like I mentioned earlier, I'm not a big fan of negative reinforcement. I think you get better results with positive reinforcement.

There is the issue of bad parents, and as MrsPigpen pointed out, certain neighborhoods can be problematic, but I'm willing to guess that income disparity plays a role in that. I'll see if I can find some stats.

My feeling is that if you clean up the neighborhood, you will clean up the crime. Part of that includes providing a variety of constructive things for teens to do so that they don't have to wander the streets at night. This is easier said than done, because it requires individual businesses who are willing to accept younger patrons into their establishments.

As I said before, I am not a cynic, I do not think all kids are bad. First of all ABs, why wait until a crime is committed. If no kid needs to be outside that late, why wait until he commits a crime.

CP

Whenever a law is written, there is usually a section at the beginning that explains why the legislators felt its enactment was necessary.

Here is an excerpt of the curfew law from the county in which I was a minor:

The Intent

Sounds like pretty vague reasoning to me. Whoever wrote that would have a lot of trouble holding their ground in a debate here

I found this next part of the law interesting since I now realize I had violated curfew at least three times a week for two years.

Regarding 16 & 17 year olds


I worked as a clerk in a gas station at ages 16 & 17. My boss felt I was responsible enough to stay until 11 p.m. to close the store (once a week) and to open the store twice a week at 5am - many of those days I would then proceed onto school AFTER I had worked a morning shift. All by myself with no supervision.

Yeah, I was up to a whole hell of a lot of trouble. So much trouble, that I was entrusted with a register and safe full of money.

Some of us don't have parents or friend's parents that get us easy jobs in their offices filing papers. Some of us had to take crappy jobs with crappy hours so that we could save for college. Had I not worked (or should I say had I not violated the law by being out past curfew), I would not have been able to pay for college.

Thanks for the trust, mom.

Do adults gathered at a Dennys or Taco Bell have any more reason for being out late than a group of teens gathered at a Dennys or Taco Bell...? Seems to me like they're both eating, talking and staying out of trouble. Yet curfew laws would allow the arrest and monetary fine of the teens but not the adults.

Should we arrest adults if they don't have good reason to be outside as late as 2 a.m.? Of course not. You're still engaging in profiling.

Why wait until a crime is committed? Oh I don't know... maybe because people in this country are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. If I see you checking out a girl at the local coffee shop should I be allowed to arrest you on charges of rape? You didn't commit a crime, but perhaps you were thinking about it while you looked at her. You didn't have a good reason to be checking her out did you? Why should I wait until you commit a crime?

Because even you are innocent until proven guilty.

I advocate profiling, when it is done in a responsible and consistent way.

Of course, that is the subject of another thread, I am sure.

This, however, is not profiling, Abs. It is more akin to the ban of tobacco and alcohol for minors.

There was a profiling thread at point Racial Profiling

It got old and a lot of people posted in it who no longer post here, so we closed it. Please feel free to start a new thread.

I'm a good kid, and as I have demonstrated I was up late all the time, doing things that any good kid could be doing.

How is this akin to tobacco or alcohol which are either provenhealth risks or are proven to impair judgement and motor speed?

This is a law allowing the suspicion of guilt, arrest and prosecution of teenagers for no other reason than being a teenager under the age of eighteen.

I looked up racial profiling to better understand profiling... racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu


Now perhaps it's just me, but it seems if I replace or include reasons of age, I'll find myself looking at the curfew laws being applied throughout the country.

An example: "Any police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity, age or national origin rather than the behavior of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular individual who has been identified as begin, or having been, engaged in criminal activity."

I bring it up here not to discuss profiling as a practice, but to show that the curfew laws, through accusation of guilt for no other reason than age are, in fact, profiling. As such, I feel they shouldn't be allowed.

Yes, there are many restrictions on minors, that do not apply to adults. Alcohol and tobacco laws, age of consent laws, laws involving contracts, forced education, etc. If we do not have the right to use curfew laws on children, what right do we have to force compulsory education upon them? What right do we have to prevent them from working?

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Nobody is suggesting that laws restricting the behaviour of minors are by-and-large illegal or improper. But all of the examples you have provided are examples where a minor is doing something that can be directly harmful, or in the case of education, a lack thereof is directly harmful to the future of a child. Merely being outside isn't necessarily so.

Being outside late at night can be directly harmful to a child, being forced to go to school instead of being allowed to work at McDonalds can also be harmful to a child. The fact is any action can be directly harmful to a child. If we have no right to pass curfew laws than we have no right to pass child labor laws.

The fact is the use of alcohol, in moderation, is not harmful. The irresponsible use of it can be deadly. Being out late at night is not inherently harmful, acting irresponsibly after hours can be. Society has chosen to outlaw the use of alcohol among minors, due to the fact that some minors will use it irresponsibly. some communities have restricted the hours minors may be outdoors due to the fact that some minors act irresponsibly when given the freedom to be out late.

Again, I fail to see the relevance of your assertion. We're arguing that it's bad policy on it's merits, not on whether or not the right exists to enforce it; which is clearly the case.

The thing I see is that there are already other laws in place to counter irresponsible actions conducted by teenagers late at night. Curfew laws allow the arrest, and presumption of guilt, of any teenager out between certain evening hours, regardless of criminal action. I would equate this with arresting, or presuming guilty, any person under the age of 21 in the liquor aisle of a grocery store.

As you see the poster refers to martial law. I would argue the prohibition of labor and compulsory education are tougher sanctions on our youth than curfew laws. The referral to martial law infers that this curfew is overly harsh and an over extension of government. My argument is that it is consistent with other restrictions on minors. Certain communities, plagued by juvenile crime, have taken such steps to protect the lives and property of its citizens. This should be a local issue. There are communities who have enacted curfew laws and seen crime and juvenile delinquency go down. I lived in one such community.

The fact that our society has decided to deny minors certain rights is highly pertinent to this debate. The debate is over rather the loss of civil liberties is worth the perceived gains in the area of reduced crime, teenage traffic deaths, STD's and other burdens to society. My argument is a curfew is small potatos compared to the draconian laws we already subject minors to.

[QUOTE=Abs like Jesus+Apr 21 2003, 04:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Abs like Jesus @ Apr 21 2003, 04:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--hugo]Being out late at night is not inherently harmful, acting irresponsibly after hours can be. Society has chosen to outlaw the use of alcohol among minors, due to the fact that some minors will use it irresponsibly. some communities have restricted the hours minors may be outdoors due to the fact that some minors act irresponsibly when given the freedom to be out late.
[/QUOTE]

^^^^Don't know what happened there.

The thing I see is that there are already other laws in place to counter irresponsible actions conducted by teenagers late at night. Curfew laws allow the arrest, and presumption of guilt, of any teenager out between certain evening hours, regardless of criminal action. I would equate this with arresting, or presuming guilty, any person under the age of 21 in the liquor aisle of a grocery store. [/QUOTE]
Why prevent teenagers from using alcohol in the first place? It is my contention that arresting minors for possession of alcohol is tantamount to arresting anyone in possession of alcohol for public intoxication. The prohibition of alcohol to minors is based on the presumption that a certain percentage of minors will drink irresponsibly and result in costs to the irresponsible minor and society. A curfew is based on the presumption that a certain percentage of minors will behave irresponsibly, after curfew hours.

I'm against the arrest for nothing more than the possession of alcohol, as well, but I figure that's the subject of another thread. I was simply trying to apply my position on the curfew laws.

Actually,I think we all agree on this issue. I simply wanted to point out curfew laws are not inconsistent with other draconian laws meant to protect our youth, and those harmed by the irresponsible ones.

I don't think bringing child labor laws into this debate is worthwhile. The reasons for enacting child labor laws had nothing to do with curtailing the child's right to work - indeed, there are still many ways for minors to earn money through their effort. Child labor laws were drafted in order to protect children from the gross exploitation of their labor which was the general practice, particularly in the 19th century.

There is argument to be made that compulsory education laws were part of an attempt to shift the body of labour from subsistence agrarianism to the model of the industrial worker, but even such a cause was not enacted in order to curtail childrens' rights - it may have been more to shift the general populace towards the cities.

Curfew laws are purely in the "punish them all for the deeds of the few" category, and as such need not be compared to the compulsory education and child labor laws. If you pass a curfew law as a way of attacking the crime rate of a certain sector of the population, it might be more applicable to compare curfew laws with things like racial profiling, and as such it matters not whether the intended portion of the affected population are children, or blacks, or women, or any identifiable group, because the nature of the law is the same.

There is no exploitation in a voluntary exchange. Child labor is needed until a society gets comfortably past the subsistance level, after that it is quickly reduced to a very small minority. The fact is curfew laws also protects children. The later a child is out the more likely he is to engage in activities that endanger his well-being. It is time to eliminate restrictions on our children's liberty;such as curfews, labor laws, and compulsory education.

I think registered voters and their representatives are in their full rights to pass laws that they think are best for their community. Parents have the right to limit the hours their children out and communities have the right to pass curfews. Local governments should have the power here short of constitutional violations.

[quote=hugo,Apr 22 2003, 01:06 AM] [QUOTE=quarkhead,Apr 21 2003, 06:13 PM]
There is no exploitation in a voluntary exchange. Child labor is needed until a society gets comfortably past the subsistance level, after that it is quickly reduced to a very small minority. The fact is curfew laws also protects children. The later a child is out the more likely he is to engage in activities that endanger his well-being. It is time to eliminate restrictions on our children's liberty;such as curfews, labor laws, and compulsory education. [/quote]
Well said.
Profiling is definatly the word, as Abs said.
The strange thing is that curfew laws are enforced in suburbia and rural areas but it's impossible to enforce them in urban areas. I was able to walk the streets of Manhatten in the early morning hours, and we all know how "dangerous" and "bad" New York is, but in my suburban town where violent crime rates are low, a large % of teens face curfew charges.
Let's punish violence, not existance.
By the same logic you can put a curfew on teenagers, yo ucan put a curfew on all citizens. It's ridiculus.

See, it even says in the curfew, that you can be out with a guardian, so it's not like it is not possible to go out at night if you are a teen.

CP

curfew laws are Ridiculous here in Northern Ky...

if you get pulled over while driving for anything, however minor at the age of 18 or under; past I think its 11 PM then you will be arrested and kept in jail overnight for breaking the curfew law.

so If I go see a late movie and I happen to have a taillight out and dont notice it I can be arrested and taken to jail simply for having a tail light out.

and here its not even the worst

in Lexington anyone 18 and younger has to be at home before 11 PM at all or they will be fined 500$

granted this is not likely to happen to me since being in the AF I think I could talk my way out of it, but still I think its a bit absurd.

Just to clarify...

You're under 18 AND a member of the US Air Force?

Or do the curfew laws apply to 18 year olds? (seems a bit odd if they do)

I'm 18 and the laws regarding are detaining anyone 18 and under (including 18 year olds) in the event of being pulled over.

I dont really have a problem with teen curfews. It sucked being arrested for it, but I wont do it again!! We should be at home anyway after the time that it is.