What do you guys think about the dreaded curfew laws?
As a teenager I'm completely offended by the assuptions they make about my character and will do everything I can to fight them. The way I see it, Curfew is just a nicer word than Martial Law. Age has nothing to do with what you're going to be doing outside, and it's ridiculus to do parenting for parents.
Thoughts?

I don't support curfew laws. I agree that they form a stereotyped generalization of America's youth, and the punishments some states have can be ridiculous. It wasn't but a couple years ago that my friend was picked up for sitting at a Dennys discussing religion and philosophy and his parents fined $200 for the violation.

I was luckier when I got stopped in neighboring Indiana for being out past the curfew. But I was only let off the hook, I believe, because I was from Kentucky and unaware of the law.

Curfew laws aren't going to make dangerous, troublesome youths anymore pleasant. For that matter, curfew laws aren't going to prevent those youth from going out at night. All it's going to do is unfairly prosecute those respectable children/young-adults alongside others and give them a reason to despise the system as well.

Believe it or not, juveniles need to have limits set on them. When many kids don't have good role models in the form of two parents, they can get into real trouble.

What the hell is a teenager doing on the streets at 1am? Nothing constructive, I assure you.

In a few years, you won't care anyway.

Would you argue that minors should be able to drink and smoke too?

You can assure us all you like. Being only 20, though, I can assure you that I did do some constructive things on the streets at 1 a.m. Considering that I could drive at 16 when I was a junior in high school, I would frequently go out to buy supplies for a project I was working on late into the night or go to a friend's house to help them with an academic or social problem they might be having.

I entered college at 17 a month before my 18th birthday. With a more relaxed school schedule, I didn't have as much reason to be home early or not go out to a club for "College Night." I wasn't going out to do drugs, rob some lady at a grocery or drive around drunk all night. As far as the drinking and drugs go, the curfew doesn't stop minors from doing this in the comfort of their own home. As I said:

As to your second comment... again taking into account I'm now 20, a few years have gone by and I do care. I can't speak for Adrian, but if I can still care, the possibility is open that she too will care in a few years, contrary to what you may believe.

Finally, as to the drinking and smoking... I'm not sure the law prohibits a minor from actually smoking, but rather just purchasing the cigarettes. Either way, I've seen enough underage people smoking to know it isn't stopping them. And I know the 21 age limit never stopped everybody in high school or college from drinking -- whether they were out past curfew or at home.

Assurances that kids are up to no good is just another stereotypical generalization. There are plenty of reasons for a teenager to be out at 1 a.m. outside of causing mischief. At any rate, why are there additional laws intended to prevent mischief between the hours of, say, midnight and 6 a.m.? Don't the conventional laws against crime and mischief that apply during the daylight hours carry over into the evening...?

This topic could almost tie into the Ageism thread...

Ageism

Having just seen the Ageism thread a few moments ago, I don't think it does yet. The Ageism thread deals with people trying to wina debate or invalidate the opposing argument with an argument of authority.

"I'm older so I'm right..." As of yet, I don't think anybody has done that.

Curfews aren't an argument of authority over teenagers, and those under the age of 18, but rather a law specifically directed against them because they are teenagers.

I see that there is some connection, but the Ageism thread is in Casual Conversation because there is nothing there to debate. It is just a place for us to bounce ideas off each other about Age and Ageism.

There is a very clear question (albeit slanted ) to debate in this thread,

Debate away

I can see both ABS and amlord's POV.

amlord. You're right. Kids do need structure. And though ABS might have been working on a *cough* school project *cough* B.S. *cough* not all kids are going to. Including yours truely (now 25)

Again, you were right when you said kids need good role models in the form of two parents.

But when they don't, the gov't should stop trying to be that role model. The gov't should stop trying to play parent. They're interfering enough as it is.

--cheers

So if we're not doing anything constructive we aren't allowed outside?
Oh, that would be good. What if people were only allowed to do constructive things? That's a frightening idea. Hanging out is not a crime.
And in actuality, I do plenty of constructive things at 1am. I'm a night person, I tend to stay up late, so if at 1am I'm at a restuarant talking to friends or walking on the street, it's no different than at 5pm.
I certainly WILL care in a few years, although I might have bigger issues to worry about that will pretain more to me, however, I will still violently oppose curfew laws. I might not be leading any protests, but I would gladly participate in them.
And yes, (gasp) I do support the right of teenagers to smoke and drink.
I do neither of these things myself, and never will, they destroy and ruin your life, but I'm not stupid. I can make my own choices. I can tell you, it's not the government's fancy little laws that keep me from doing any of those things. It's my own personal decision not to. And becuase I have made the decision, I strongly support the right of others to make the decision themselves as well, even if they pick the opposite choice. Teenagers are smart enough to choose. It's not like at 17 and 364 days you cannot choose for yourself, but at exactally 18 those cancer sticks are all yours if you want them. It doesn't add up. Laws don't stop teens from drinking or smoking or doing other types of drugs, all they do is waste tax money. Something like 88% of teenagers drink. Those idiots would actually be less likely to drink if they were legally allowed to, just look at most of the European countries.
I'm straight edge (Hence the X-ed hands on my avatar) and I will never drink, smoke, or do drugs. But that's MY CHOICE. It wouldn't mean a single thing if it were forced upon me.

I doubt that curfew laws do very much good except to create bitter resentment in those who are effected by them. There are already laws against destructive behavior by persons of any age; what else is the purpose of such laws? Are intelligent, highly moral minors such as Abs and Adrian to be lumped in with the small number of minors who are troublemakers?

The curfew law has been in existance since I was a kid. I remember as a kid on Tv at 10:30 weekdays and at 11:30 on weekends they would actually come on and say the time. And then ask "Do you know where your children are?"
Curfew laws are for kids 16 and under. I think a kid at 16 doesn't have to be out after those allowed times. They are in school.
I think in the summer maybe 11:30 and 12:30 on weekends.
Unless they are working a job they do not have to out. If you have a project at school due they give you plenty of time to do the project. (Stop procastinating)
I do know that if you have permission from your parents they are not going to get you for a curfew. But kids under 16 out at a coffee shop, just hanging out on a street corner are usually up to no good. I was a kid at one time remember.
I know at 16 you think it is violating your rights. You have no rights. I thought the same thing at 16, but as a parent I now understand. I think you will too.

Indiana curfew unconstitutional, 2000

I have yet to see where the curfew laws have any validity. What are curfew laws preventing that other laws aren't? If a group of 17 year-olds are sitting at a Dennys over coffee discussing philosophy or playing cards, why should they be hassled, fined or arrested? They certainly wouldn't be targeted at 5 p.m. Does the rise and setting of the sun change the laws of our cities?

What's wrong with letting the officers pick up the kids doing something wrong at night and leaving the kids sitting in the coffee shop or gathered on the sidewalk alone? And if we can't trust them standing on the street or sitting at the coffee shop at 2 a.m., why should we be expected to trust them at 10 p.m.? When did the time of day gain a direct impact on the legality of two or three identical situations?

It's a helluva thing when three or four hours can turn the same harmless, innocent act into criminal mischief in violation of city laws and ordinances...

I don't know about where you live, but where I grew up, the laws are usually applied to groups of teens roaming the streets, not sitting at a coffee shop or Denny's (although Denny's was around when I was a teen, coffee shops were not popular, and that was only a dozen years ago).

So, you won't agree that MOST teens out at that hour are MORE prone to destructive behavior (drinking, smoking, vandalizing, disturbing the peace, etc.)? You can't, as a teen, go into certain movies either. Shameless that someone would want to protect you, even if you refuse to believe you need guidance.

An example to illustrate why even if a group of teens is not being "bad" this law should still apply:

Say that you are 16, just recently got your license. You hang out at a friends house until, say 9pm, and then the four of you decide to go to Dennys to play cards (or discuss politics, or gossip, or whatever). You stay there until 2am. At 2am, you need to drive your buddies home. Now, given that teens are already more prone to accidents, given that lack of sleep impairs you ability to drive, given that its 2am when there may be more drunks on the road, I would submit that your chance of being in a car accident are increased.

This law is for the teens safety, not to punish them or to play parent for them. It is similar to why it is illegal to turn of red at certain lights. Nothing inherently bad with turning on red, but at those particular intersections, turning on red is an increased safety risk.

Teens are more prone to do stupid things than older people. They are willing to do things "on a dare" the way that older people will not.

As to the fact that a law exists will not prevent behavior...I submit the exact opposite is true. Law-abiding people (including teens) as less likely to do something that is against the law than they would be if the same act was illegal.

A quote from Abs' article..



If you aren't doing something "suspicious" there is no reason that most policemen will bother you.

Um...Actually, it can be. It's called loitering.

I'm kind of curious when you think all this independance should begin. Birth? Should a 7 year old be able to bring his pennies to the counter and buy a pack of smokes?

And why exactly is loitering a crime? Who is the victim of such a crime?

I think it is up to parents to set boundaries for their children. The state should only step in when parental support is absent, and even then it should be through social work and welfare, and not through blanket legislation.

I'm 24, and shockingly enough, quite a lot of things that i do are not constructive. Should I penalised for that, or am I allowed to spend my time as I see fit simply because I am over 20. Why should this choice be denied to teenagers?

I don't know the origins of the law. Who is the victim? The business, whose customers are potentially driven away from a store due to loiterers.

How do people standing near a shop prevent others from shopping there? If they engage in intimidation then that is a different matter, and there are other laws in place to deal with that, but what harm does 'loitering' actually do? I'm afraid i really do fail to see the problem with teen-agers going outside at night

I don't have much of an opinion about the issue, either way. I was just answering the original poster's assumption that 'standing around doing nothing isn't a crime. It CAN be.

I know, because when I was 16 a cop threatened to arrest me for loitering. I waited at a convenience store for a friend whose car was right behind mine, but stuck in traffic. I think I stood there a total of 5 minutes, and there was no curfew law. I had never heard of loitering as a crime before then, either. I am assuming that they were accustomed to having groups of loiterers around that property, and wanted to discourage it. Either that, or the cop was just an *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***. Probably a combination of both.

Comparing curfew laws to "giving 7 year olds cigarettes" is so completely absurd that I can't imagine how anyone could possibly relate the two.
Anyways, onto the subject at hand...
I think these kind of laws closely relate to the idea of banning guns. OK, here me out, there *is* a connection.
If you completely ban guns, make it illegal, throw jail-time in for posession, etc... then the only people on the streets with guns are criminals. Law-abiding citizens who would own guns if they were legal will no longer due so. If a criminal owns a gun they are probably going to use that gun to commit a crime whereas a law abiding citizen would use it for protection, hunting, whatever reason people own guns. Criminals, on the other hand, if they are going to disregard the law are going to due so for gun legislation. This is the case with the curfew.
Good kids are going to stay in because that is the law and bad kids are going to go out anyways because they are bad kids. Curfew laws do not have any impact on juvenile crime. No teenager is going to say "Hey! Let's go vandalize the school! Oh fiddle-dee-dee, it's past curfew, let's do it another time." Please.

And as far as the "if you are out at 1am and are a teenager you are only making trouble," comment... when I was in High School (OMG teenager, evil evil evil) I was in a band and would often be out playing shows around local clubs and bars (oh no oh no oh no! kids near alcohol, they can't resist the evil temptation!) and would often not get home until 4-5am the next day. After we played we'd do the meet and greet and people would offer to "sneak me drinks" because I was "in the band, oh how cool!" but I refused because I knew I had to drive home. My parents were ok with this and that's what matters. If you are a parent then DO YOUR JOB and parent, maybe YOU are incompetent enough that you need Big Brother Sam to watch your kids but for most people that isn't the case.

Another example: When my current boyfriend was 17 he drove to a neighboring city to take photographs for a band he knew. On his way home a policeman tapped on his window at a stoplight and ID'd him. He was tried as a criminal about a month later.

If this isn't absurd, I don't know what is.
I am sorry if I am coming off as rude but the most hypocritical defense of curfew laws come from parents. Statements like, "I, as A Parent™, think kids shouldn't be on the streets after 7pm!!!" Well, you know what? Do your job and keep YOUR kids off the streets at 7pm, not everyone feels that way.

*huff huff* ok, I think I'm done. :=

Whether people want to justify it with "crimes" like loitering is up to them. But I'm still confused about this novel vampire mentality that seems to define the curfew laws.

As it seems to go, teenagers can be trusted to mill around together all day long without being construed as dangerous or troublesome by the law. But somehow, as the sun descends over the horizon and the full moon glows in the night sky, these very same groups of kids suddenly become vandals, stalkers, thieves and rapists. Sometimes it's even worse... sometimes they even loiter.

I must be foolish with much to learn as I grow older. For some silly reason I had this notion that good kids were good and bad kids were bad regardless of what celestial body graced our skies. I wasn't aware, I confess, that the innocence of youth crashed to the earth with the setting of the sun, and that the malicious demons hidden within were set free of their chains by the pale glow of the moon.

Since the honorable fellows at the justice system are clearly more aware of the nocturnal dangers posed by pre- and post-pubescent teenagers, I suppose it is the right thing after all to keep curfew laws in effect.

And if their parents don't then what?

CP

If there were no curfew laws, then groups of people (teens in this case) could not even be questioned about what they are doing by police. There needs to be some evidence of a crime, which the curfew law gives the police an excuse to question a teen who is out at night. (This, to me, is a good thing).

Abs, your comments about celestial bodies is dis-ingenuous. More crimes ARE commited a night, especially stuff like vandalism, which is the most likely crime to be committed by teens at night. Vandalism can be discouraged by having teens think that people MIGHT be watching them as they do it.

It was a response to the original poster, who said:



I'm honestly curious WHEN she thinks independence begins. If all teens are smart enough to choose smoking, drinking, don't need a curfew, ect. Are preteens? All children? A teen is not an adult, and there are limits to 'free' behavior before adulthood. Being absurd is sometimes the best way to demonstrate the absurd.

I might add, since it was not self- evident to the original poster, teenagers do not have all of the freedoms of adults, because they do not share all of the responsibilities of adults. For example, a teenager caught vandalizing property during the night would be classified as a juvenile and given a slap on the wrist. An adult would be tried to the full extent of the law.

I think teenagers would be flattered to see how responsible we think most of them are . Curfews help keep order, I don't know many teenagers that would do anything legal late in the night, as another poster said, we can't give people that much freedom that early, wait till they're more responsible.

CP

Is there some law that prevents police officers from asking a question? I wasn't aware that police needed some law to enforce before they could talk to a person or group of people (regardless of age) standing on the street. As I understand it, police only need a crime to question a person if they are planning on arresting them and taking them in for questioning. Outside that, there seems to be nothing stopping a police officer from walking by and asking a group of people what they are up to.

As far as crimes occuring at night... what makes you think teens are responsible for the overwhelming majority of night crimes? It seems that the only justification here for passing a curfew law against teens and not adults would be if teens were responsible for the vast majority of evening crimes.

Aren't the police supposed to watch for vandalism and other crimes regardless of the time of day...? And since teens aren't solely responsible for nighttime crimes, shouldn't the police be more vigilant at night in general, without having to target or harass people for no other reason than their age?

I went out (when I was underage) with my teammates to bars after games on a regular basis. I didn't drink or do anything illegal, and would often walk home at times well after midnight. I'd hang out with friends simply chilling until the wee hours of the morning. I'd go to late movies (better crowds), come home from work, or come home after watching the Blue Jays lose again and I'd often be travelling after midnight on any of these ocassions without breaking the law. Can you offer ANY evidence that my experiences are atypical?

Can you offer any evidence that your experience is typical?

Curfew laws can be effective law enforcement tools. They are rarely, if ever, uniformally applied. Quality-of-life crimes such as vandalism are usually committed by teens. Frequently, those crimes occur after curfew. The law is a tool of prevention. Sometimes a totally innocent juvie is written up, but them's the breaks. I don't know how draconian the punishment is in other areas, but in my neck of the woods it is far less than a traffic summons. In truth, you face no penalty if there isn't some evidence of other illegal activity.

There are many laws on the books that are only enforced on an 'as needed' basis. That is the nature of the beast in law enforcement. There are discretionary powers. Sometimes those powers are abused. Sometimes they are misused. Again, nature of the beast since we are all humans, not robots.

So... the curfew law is supposed to be a tool of prevention, from what I gather here. Yet, it would seem that the vandalism laws would be the tool of prevention. And the nifty thing is that you can apply them both during the daytime and the nighttime as well!

That's the thing... if I'm a police officer and I see a group of kids vandalizing a school or something, am I going to arrest them and fine them for breaking curfew, or am I going to arrest them and fine them for vandalism? Naturally, the curfew law is going to snag innocent teens... but it doesn't have to. Why not apply other, more credible laws to actual crimes when they happen?

I've addressed the daylight savings crime issue enough, I think. Now I would question the entire application of the curfew laws to particular age groups. Are we really to believe that a senior high school student is more responsible at 12:01 a.m. on Friday (this student's 18th birthday) than they were at the same time Thursday morning...?

I still see the curfew laws as being devoid of any true purpose and responsible for the unjustified punishment of many innocent teens. If teens are misbehaving at night, arrest them and charge them for a crime they are guilty of. Don't pick them up simply for speculating they could commit a crime. They may grow up thinking this whole pre-emption thing is acceptable and start passing more ridiculous laws that.... oh, wait a minute...

Nope, but I don't have to. The founding principal of Western justice is innocent until proven guilty, no? At least that's what I was taught in school. Conservpat asked how many people can be out late at night without breaking the law. I know of at least one, me; and all of the activities I described can hardly be perceived as rare.

If we are going to get into personal examples we'll be here forever. The point is that most teens probably don't have to be out that late at night, and if it really isn't really nessesary for them to be out at night, and a lot are even doing bad things at night, why not prevent them from being out during late times in the evening?

CP

Yes, I imagine it's so easy to write off an injustice when it isn't happening to you, but how does this make sense? I will repeat KIDS WHO WERE GOING TO BE GOOD, LAW ABIDING KIDS ANYWAYS WILL STAY INSIDE AFTER CURFEW BUT THE LAWBRAKERS/"BAD KIDS" WILL NOT.

Alternately, I think *much* worse crimes are committed by adults at night than anything a teenager could/would do.. so why don't we enable a "preventative" law that imposed a curfew for ALL citizens? Oh wait, that would be a police state, wouldn't it?

The parents of these bad kids will now be forced to pay attention to where their kids go at night, no that it will be against the law, a bad kid can't just get out of the house anymore.

CP

Since when have curfew laws prevented a bad child from leaving the house...? If anything they force well mannered and behaved children to remain in their homes regardless of what reasons they may have for wanting to go outside.

If a bad child has no regard for vandalism laws, among others, what makes anybody think they're going to respect a curfew law? It doesn't make much sense from where I'm sitting.

"Ah, we got 'em now, Jim. They think it's funny to spray paint the school, break windows and smoke pot on the street corner... but this will show them. They may not respect any of our other laws, but by God they'll never have the cajones to leave the house once we hit 'em with these curfews!"

I mean, really... who believes this?

In my experience, curfew laws forced night clubs that hosted under-age nights to expel all underaged kids at curfew. Those very same kids who were initially in a controlled environment, ended up trying to find other things to do while still evading the cops and avoiding going home...not hard to do.

Rather than enacting curfew laws, it would be better to encourage teenagers to hang out in controlled environments when they are out such as all-ages nights at clubs or coffee shops.

The police cannot stop and question you unless they suspect you are guilty of a crime. Curfew laws allow them to question teens who are out at suspicious times, so they help prevent more serious crimes, such as vandalism, which is rarely caught "in the act" but might be prevented.

Because that is illegal and immoral. There is nothing in any legal document in the U.S. that says that a person needs a justification to be out in public. You want to raise a bunch of rebellious and ill-adjusted kids? Well I imagine that tell them that they can't be out late because as kids they just can't be trusted is a good way to start.

That is an absolutely horrible argument.

That means putting limits on your kids' activities will make them rebellious or bad kids.

Kids are, by definition, minors. They NEED guidance and limits.

I couldn't agree more, Kids require REASONABLE limits. I wouldn't let a child drink a mickey of Vodka, nor would I let a teenager fly a military aircraft. But saying "you can't go outside because you can't be trusted to behave" is an entirely different animal.

You're right. They do need limits, but they also need that buffer period to learn how to be responsible adults. If teenagers have proven themselves to be trustworthy, shouldn't it be up to the parents to make the decision about whether or not they can be out? Being suspicious of all teenagers does nothing but put kids on the defensive and cause a common distrust for authority. I think that's what UJ was getting at. You get better results with positive reinforcement than you do with negative reinforcement, and IMO that's what curfew laws are.

It sounds more like you are describing probable cause for search and seizure. I've never seen or heard of a police officer being unable to ask a person a question without having basis for believing they are engaged in criminal activity. Perhaps you could provide some source or link for this code of officer conduct...?

As far as this goes, though, how does the right to pose a question prevent a crime from happening? It's a completely unfounded presumption of guilt which essentially persecutes all teenagers under the age of eighteen.

It seems pretty typical for those arguing in favor of curfew laws here to make the generalization that teens engage in more vandalism at night than any other group. This seems to make sense from a limited perspective. Yet how many of them would then agree that, since there are statistics labeling black males as being more violent than other groups, black males should have specific laws and regulations determining when they can and cannot be outside?

Doesn't sound real good, does it? And it's unlikely you'd find many proponents for such law or regulation. People tend to take a dim view of profiling, which is precisely what a curfew law applied to teens is. Profiling on the basis of age is no better than racial profiling, no matter what kind of spin is put on it.

They cannot stop or detain anyone without suspicion of a crime. Teens would not need to stop or answer.

You act like there is this huge goon squad of cops roaming around looking for teens.

Kids can't : smoke, drink alcohol, or be out past their bedtimes.

WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL with protecting them? (at least until they are legal and can make terrible mistakes on their own).

And not allowing them out at 11:00 Pm is so unreasonable and immoral? What exactly is sooo immoral about not letting a 14 year old out at 11? Parents don't let most go out that late anyway, is that immoral too?

CP

Parents are in a better position to asess what their individual children can be trusted to do. If you simply impose a curfew on all young people you are saying as a group that they cannot be trusted; and since that chance for responsibility has been removed they have little opportunity to dispell those notions. A parent telling a child not to stay out late can set those restrictions as they see fit and a child has a chance to respond appropriately.

Some parents can't do that though. Good kids don't go out that late anyway, so it doesn't really affect them, bad kids, or kids who don't have great parents do, so the curfew forces the parents into making sure their kids don't go out past curfew.

CP

It sounds to me like it forces the irresponsible parents to be held accountable. Isn't that a good idea?

There's nothing immoral about it, but parents should get to choose when and where their teenagers go. Curfew laws do effect teenagers that are older than 14 years old, including teenagers that are old enough to be trusted with the responsibility of driving a car. If they have proven themselves to be trustworthy, what is the problem with giving them a longer leash, if you will?

Teens who are able to drive [18 year olds] are most likely in college, it doesn'affect them.

CP

I agree with you to a point, Cyan, but I think it depends on the community in question. If there is an ongoing problem with vandalization of property or other juvenile- related crime, perhaps the best way to circumvent it is a curfew.
BTW...just as a side-note about how harmful night time juvenile crime can be...In Florida, there were a number of teens that thought it was fun to steal roadsigns. Eventually, it led to the dead of several people because the stop sign which should have been at an intersection was removed.

Conservpat, I know a lot of good kids who stay out late. I was one of those kids. My parents did not give me a curfew, because I had proven that I could be trusted. I spent my time out at coffee houses and nightclubs, and it played a role in shaping who I am, because I knew that my parents trusted me and that there was a mutual respect. Because of that, I did what I could to maintain that trust.



MrsPigpen, In theory it sounds like a good idea to force irresponsible parents to be responsible, but it hinders parents that are already responsible from using their roles effectively. Do you really want the government to be able to tell you how to raise your children?

Edited to add: Conservpat, I don't know what the driving age is where you live, but it's sixteen in Colorado.

You didn't say "stop or detain them." You said that without curfew laws police couldn't stop and ask a group of teens what they were doing. Allow me to remind you of two statements you made, in two separate posts, if I may:

So what you and others seem to be advocating is profiling. The only "suspicion of crime" you're wanting police to have is the fact that they are teenagers under the age of eighteen. Now, if suspecting a person of a crime based solely on their age isn't profiling, I'd love to hear what it is.


Where I live people get their license at 16.