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?

95 responses total.

I am against curfews in general. They don't accomplish their intended goal
and they infringe on people's rights. Basically, I agree.

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?

I don't understand the supposed reasoning behind curfews.  I keep reading
whatabout what wonderful things they are, since they will keep the kids who
are causing trouble off the streets.  I'm not sure why they would have that
effect.  If somebody, regardless of age, is doimg sonething illegal they can
already be arrested, for doing whatever it is that they shouldn't be doing
rather than for being outside.  It seems to me that all a curfew would
accomplish would be to take up police time that could be spent fighting real
crime by arresting people whose only crime was to be outside at night.

In addition to not making sense, it's also pretty repressive.  Of course that
doesn't matter to the council people, since the curfew expempts them and
anybody who is old enough to vote against them.

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.

Ypsilanti already has a similar curfew in effect, and we can
see how well that's worked.  >8)

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

Omni, the better procedure is to call the police, because the people were
disturbing the peace. If you encourage curfews, you run the risk of having
them applied to *you*. Find some other way to solve the problem.  [I once
had the police come because someone complained that I was playing music
too loudly - even though it was Beethoven! Cam you imagine?]

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.

Most youth crime occurs in the few hours after school ends. The curfew won't
even be in effect then. Not that this is the best reason not to have curfews,
it's just another reason.

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.

Please make an appointment with the AA Police and review the dockets.
You might gain a different perspective on the need for curfews. You may
not have experienece youth-crime, lately. You will. If curfews are a bad
remedy -- what are the alternatives.  Curfews give the police added power
to prevent crime. I don't like curfews, but neither do I like crime. The
choice is not hard to make within limits. The fact is, a "police-state" is
developing in many urban areas but it is not the police that are in control.
Your due process rights are severely restricted in the gang culture.

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.

I don't like curfews.  They abridge the rights of all because of
a few troublemakers.  Address the problem.

How about a curfew for adbarr?

Yes!  We cannot allow adbarr to recklessly wander the streets
at night, wreaking havoc with that bat of his!

(What, he doesn't have the bat any more?)

Never mind.

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.

Its a tilt toward the right-wing, "family", crowd. Both candidates
are working both sides of the street.

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.

No matter how bad the crime scene is, it is dwarfed in a vast way by the
people who are not committing crimes.  Every day thousands of people in Ann
Arbor break no laws.  They should not be punished.  Especially with a law that
will do nothing to stop the crime.  Do you really think the delinquents will
say to themselves, "Oh, darn! A curfew.  I guess I have to stay away from my
gang now since I would be breaking the law by going over there tonight."  Get
real.

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.

I've seen drug paraphrenalia on the grass outside my apartment
building.  Good enough for you, adbarr?

  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.

Minors have, for many many years, at least in the not-to-distant past complied
with curfews imposed by real totaliarians -- their parents. Was that unjust?
Things have changed. If the local youth were spending their time doing
research on night insects, stargazing, and going to the library there
would be no need for curfews -- assuming they had their parent's permission
to be out. I don't think the push for curfews was a reaction to that
idyllic situation. I don't see 11 pm as draconian on weeknights - which,
by the way, used to be called "school nights". I don't see a serious
right for minors to be "hanging around" after 11 pm. Some crime rates
are going down. Violent crimes committed by youth are not part of that
decline. Do you have any awareness of the existence of gangs in the
County? Ignoring the problems around here is not a prescription for
cure. 

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. ;-)

And I am shocked at your apparent lack of awareness at what is happening
on our streets every night. There are people locked up in the public 
housing units by the kids roaming outside, not by the police. Guess
it depends on who you think should rule the streets. Because, if you
care to look in the right places, the streets are being ruled and the 
control is getting worse.  Just because it does not take place in your
particular neighborhood does not mean it is not real. You need a tour.

"Schoolnights," during the summer, are "weeknights."  And at 16, if I was
out with friends, it was generally past 11pm.

Parents can send their kids to their room for saying bad words, or 
withhold dessert for their failure to pick up their toys.  That doesn't
mean the government should be afforded the same control.

Gang activity is allegedly down significantly in Ann Arbor since the
gang shootout last summer that killed a girl (during an afternoon
barbecue, as I recall).  If there are high-crime areas for which a
curfew is "needed," (i.e. beyond the ability of the police to control),
maybe there should be curfews in those areas.  But even then, why 
restrict the curfew to those under 17?  And where, in Ann Arbor, do
you suggest we look for "high crime"...I browse the crime map monthly,
and the main pattern is that nearer to downtown and campus, there are
more crimes, but even there it doesn't seem unacceptably high.

I don't need the tour.  I see firsthand the human debris.
Gang violence is wrong.  Address the problem but don't punish
good kids by robbing them of their rights.  

Would you be willing to be part of an adult curfew imposed 
to clamp down on all crime?  I mean, there is a whole lot
of crime being committed by mostly men over 16.  So how about
all adult males not being allowed out on weekdays, after 
midnight, as a way of helping police catch bad guys?

(In the background I hear a multitude of women cheering.)

As I recall, several of the people involved in that gang shootout were not
minors.

Mary's male curfew makes tremendously more sense than the proposed 
minor curfew.  At least with that, it would really diminish night-
time crime.  Except the crime of curfew violation, of course.

I was at the Top of the Park movie tonight, wondering if all the
kids there would be banned under the proposed curfew.  Being an
outdoor theater, movies don't start until 10PM.

I watched the City Council meeting where this was discussed
and watch in amazement as Police Commissioner Ent explained 
that having this curfew law available would not mean a city-wide
enforcement but rather give the police the ability to enforce
it on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis.  Say what?  So
a good black kid from public housing gets harassed but a white
kid from a quiet west side neighborhood doesn't?  I was shocked,
quite frankly, to hear him be so honest.

I am writing my ward representatives with my feeling on this
issue.  I hope others are doing the same.  The issue comes
up on the July 15th agenda. 

Gee, if all those good kids in Ann Arbor are creating such an ideal 
nighttime atmosphere, you can turn this into a tax-saving measure 
and substantially reduce your police force. No crime = no police.
Did anyone get a chance to attend the funeral for the gang member
a few weeks ago? No? Guess it was not carried in the Community
section of the AA News or the Observer. That means, of course,
it did not happen. Therefore there are no funerals, no killings,
no gangs. We are safe! Assuming this is true. I concede that 
we are perfectly safe and that those little people beating up on
others are illusions. Of course it is good to know that those
"illusions" never cross political boundaries so problems in the
Townships, or Ypsilanti, or Saline, or whereever, will never affect
anyone in the golden city. I wonder, however, how those illusions
from Detroit/Chicago/LA are able to seemingly do the impossible?
This method of thinking will also do away with the drug problem,
AIDS, and dirty dishes. 

Mary, I'm equally surprised at the chief's candor.  Selective, non-random
enforcement is, to me, a corruption of justice.  It allows police biases
(racial, gender, etc.) to play a prominent role in arrests and harrassment.
It is one thing to deploy more police in higher crime areas, it's another
to admit that laws will not be enforced in low crime areas.

Your sarcasm, Arnold, does not obscure your support for police suppression
of established civil rights. We all know there is crime in the street,
including between 11 pm and 6 am. We all know that an enforced curfew for
*everyone* between those hours would decrease the crime rate (especially
if the instructions to the police were to "shoot on sight"). I do suspect
that then allowing just those 16 and younger out after 11 will cause a lot
less crime than allowing just those 17 and older out after 11. Better
police enforcement of laws, and citizen support by reporting crime, and
more community sponsored activities for minors, would be most effective
without violating civil rights. 

I don't think a selective, neighborhood, curfew, would survive a
constitutional challenge - at least, I hope not. A curfew itself would, I
am sure, be challenged by the ACLU, as not being justified by the problem,
which can be addressed by more effective - and legal - means. 

I still say that a 'hood' is rather unlikely to pay any attention to curfew
law.  How will subdueing innocent people help fight crime?  There are
perfectly good laws against killing and fighting.  If they were enforced the
issue of a curfew would never have come up.  We have more than sufficient
laws without violating peoples' right to freedom.  There is this other thing
in there about "equal protection under the law" which makes the selective
enforcement nauseating.

rcurl, your skill at words does not carry the right to attribute them to
me. I know of no civil right for "infants" to have around-the-clock 
access to public space. All law enforcement, is by nature, selective - 
they strive to control the guilty while not interferring with the innocent.
Life is not perfect. I understand there was a 16 year old killed in a
drive-by shooting this morning. Anyone have any details? Anyone care?
I did not see a report in the paper. Supposedly in Ypsilanti Township.
I would rather see the citizen involvement and community sponsored 
activities you suggest than I would want to have oppressive curfews.
What often happens when a police officer apprehends a juvenile results
in the release of the juvenile because there is no adequate place to
take them. Parents -- not home. Jail -- no good. Private shelters 
are trying to take up the slack. You knew that of course. We really
need to be arresting the parents. Find them.

Arthurp slipped in. 

Details of the shooting, that I gathered from the radio, were that it was
in broad daylight, and as stated, in Ypsilanti Township.  I don't believe
the person was killed, as he made statements to the police afterwards.
He'd had an argument with some people the night before, but wasn't sure if
they were the shooters.
 
Arnold, I think you're using a different meaning of "selective," something
like "police can't catch every criminal."  It was used earlier to mean that
police see different people commit the same crime, yet only enforce the law
against some of those people.
 
Some parents *were* convicted for their son's crimes, somewhere around
Michigan, earlier this year.  A law was passed in that area holding parents
responsible for not keeping kids out of trouble, and they were found to
have broken that law.  An interesting case.

I guess if we shoot people in the daytime our nights are going to be 
peaceful. Only so many bullets. I do not support selective enforcement of 
the law. My experience is that the police are pretty even-handed in 
arresting people for clear criminal violations. There is a lot of 
reporting about minorities being hassled disproportionately by police
in some communities. That happens and is wrong. What does that have to
do with the issue of keeping minors off the street late at night?

The connection is that the police chief, according to Mary, said that the
law would be enforced only in certain neighborhoods.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss