Curfews for kids

Jun 6 21:38 UTC 1996

  I skimmed an article that said Ann Arbor is considering a curfew
for people under age 17, forbidding them from being out after 11pm
weeknights, or 12am weekends.  This seems unjustifiably repressive
to me.  What do other people think?

response 2 of 95:

Jun 7 01:46 UTC 1996

And even if you did agree curfews were ok, Ann Arbor is the *last* place
I would think such a thing would be needed. What happened? Did some 8 year
olds trample a few flowers in some council member's garden?

response 4 of 95:

Jun 7 07:09 UTC 1996

I'm opposed to curfews. They are now in place in several large cities, and
they appear to decrease the youth crime rate. Of course, curfews for adults
wouyld decrease the adult crime rate too. Both are "police state"
measures, however. Whatever problem exists should be tackled without
violating individual freedoms and rights. If there is to be any limitation
on youths, of this nature, it is the parents that should be responsible.

response 6 of 95:

Jun 7 19:01 UTC 1996

  A few nights ago there were about 150 people playing loud music at midnite
near our house. Yes, I support cerfews.

response 8 of 95:

Jun 8 03:26 UTC 1996

I agree with Rane.  The people playing loud music were already breaking laws
that say they can't play loud music that late at night.  If having one law
against what they were doing doesn't help, why would another such law?  The
only people who need a curfew law to get in trouble are the people who aren't
doing anything else wrong.

response 10 of 95:

Jun 8 19:35 UTC 1996

Just a reason to start the curfew earlier, say 5pm?  :-)

I could support curfews, with various exceptions, in ultra-high-crime areas.
During riots, for example, it makes sense.  Possibly just in areas where
people are killed a lot...I seem to recall there was a higher per-capita
murder rate in Detroit than there was a per-capita fatal casualty rate 
during the Gulf War.  In the highest crime areas, it might make sense to
have curfews with allowances for being in your own yard, and for people
who work then.  But it's very hard for me to envision realistic 
circumstances when I'd think it would make sense to have curfews for
people under 17, but not for older people.

And in Ann Arbor, especially, it just seems absurd.  There's just not enough
crime to justify such measures.

response 12 of 95:

Jun 9 06:04 UTC 1996

Arnold, would you support a curfew for your age group, if it could be shown
that there were people your age commiting crimes?

Yes, there are problems with people of various ages committing crimes, but
not all those too young to vote against the council people who impose curfews
on them are criminals, nor are all those old enough to vote against the city
council people non-criminals.  There's nothing magical about becoming old
enough to vote that turns violent people who shouldn't be allowed out at night
into non-violent people.

Computer system administrators often joke that their systems would be a lot
easier to run if there weren't any users.  That's true, of course, but without
users there is little use for system administrators.  I suppose getting rid
of people to police could make the job of the police a lot easier (if it
didn't mean the police would then have to do something to keep peopel off the
streets), but keeping innocent people locked up in their homes is not the job
of the police.  The job of the police is to keep us safe, while allowing us
to have freedoms.  If the police can't handle that, it's time to find new
police who are qualified to do their jobs.

No matter how high the crime is, unless it gets to the point where absolutely
everybody is guaranteed to be a violent criminal, I fail to see how a curfew
that will have to be enforced helps fight crime.  Without a curfew, we have
lots of police who can in theory be doing something to stop robberies and
assaults.  With an enforced curfew, we have the same number of police, but
they will be too busy rounding up people who aren't causing any trouble for
curfew violations to be able to actually do anything about those who are
causing trouble.  Does having all the police tied up doing useless stuff
really help make us safer?  Remember, if anybody, regardless of age, is doing
something wrong other than being outside, they can be arrested for whatever
it is that they're doing.

Arnold asks us to go down to the police station and take a look at juvenile
crime statistics.  I'm sure we'll see some number of crimes committed by those
not old enough to vote out the council members.  In response to that, I ask
Arnold to go down to the police station and ask to see my record.  I was a
minor who was often out very late at night just a little over a year ago..
Arnold won't find anything on me down there, because I've never been arrested.
The few interactions I've had with the police over the last several years have
always ended with them deciding that I wasn't anybody they should be worrying
about before they even got to the point of asking my name, or how old I was.
Yet, according the argument Arnold is making, I must have been some sort of
menace.  Otherwise I would have been old enough to vote.

response 14 of 95:

Jun 9 21:03 UTC 1996

How about a curfew for adbarr?

response 16 of 95:

Jun 10 14:16 UTC 1996

A curfew would make it easier for me as a parent to impose my own
curfew on my kids -- kind of like "It's not just me, it's the law"
However, that's just my own convenience -- I agree with the 
majority on this one - too much intrusion on the rights of 
individuals.  If somebody is behaving illegally, they can be
arrested.  Keeping everybody off the streets is throwing out
the baby with the bath water.

What really puzzles me and annoys me is that Clinton is talking
about it.  As if it's a national issue.  These are local problems
and none of Clinton's business.

response 18 of 95:

Jun 11 23:04 UTC 1996

Yeah, sure. You don't read the &*%$# I read every day from the cops on the
beat. Come down to the real basement and see what your police have to deal
with. This is not debates on the steps of the United States Supreme Court,
the only court mandated in the Constitution of the United States. This is
blood, drugs, cuts, bullets, danger, husbands dying and leaving infant
children and wives, evil, and more you don't have a clue about. Get involved.
They don't teach this ^^^%$#$$# at Community High. Do any of you even have
a clue about what "drug paraphanalia" is? Float on the clouds, if you wish.
Be prepared for reality.

response 20 of 95:

Jun 12 05:55 UTC 1996

I do not approve of the crime and violence referred to by adbarr in #18,
but its existence, from a minority of the population, does not call for
converting to a police state. It requires *addressing the problem*, which
may require more cops on the street - *many* more cops. I would rather pay
for that than pay for enforcing a curfew on mostly innocent kids. In
addition, as arthurp says, a curfew will have no affect on any of the
crime and violence that occurs either outside curfew time (unless you
want it 24 hours, eh?), or in the "privacy" of homes and cars. 

Yes, I know what "drug paraphanalia" are, but my knowing or not knowing
does not appear to bear on the question.

response 22 of 95:

Jun 16 05:47 UTC 1996

  Arnold, while murders and burglaries are bad, how can you in good
conscience punish an entire group of people?  We could go a step
further and just incarcerate all kids until they turn 17, and be
assured of curtailing the non-prison youth crime rate, but that's
ridiculous.  Curfews seem a less drastic form of that idea, but
with similar ridiculousness, in my opinion.
 
  Then there's the timing of the curfews: 11PM on weeknights.  The
sun doesn't even set until after 9 these days...God forbid a kid
would want to stargaze with a telescope during their summer break.

response 24 of 95:

Jun 19 13:10 UTC 1996

I wouldn't like it much if I knew I couldn't go out after a certain hour. 
It wouldn't have liked it when I was 16 or 40. Good kids need to be given
a strong and clear message that they are respected and trusted *because*
of their good behavior - that acting responsibly has rewards.  Trading
this in to make it more convenient for the police to keep troublemakers in
line is not a very good option. 

Bad kids will still be out there doing their thing.  But because
the good kids won't be it will make it a no-brainer for the authorities.
Yucko.  Double yucko.

adbarr, I'm shocked you're supporting this thing.  It's people like
you who give true liberals a wishy-washy reputation. ;-)