|
|
Post by frankcor on Aug 8, 2008 15:08:31 GMT -5
Can I have a replay of that? I must have missed it. While it may be a bit simplistic, it definitely shows the limitations of the usual left-right (or liberal-conservative) single-axis paradigm with which we are so familiar. The Advocates argue that two axes is more representative, adding one for personal freedom v. big government. I'm a died-in-the-wool libertarian and generally oppose any curfew. However, the most popular arguments I've heard against this particular measure are pretty weak: -- It's unconstitutional -- double check that. Children under 15 aren't guaranteed the same freedoms as adults. There is no right to stay up late. -- It's unenforceble -- yeah, and so are laws against bank robberies and speeding because people will alwaysl rob banks and will always speed. But we still have laws prohibiting those behaviors. |
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Aug 8, 2008 15:33:49 GMT -5
I say lock 'em all up 'til they're 21. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Aug 8, 2008 15:46:54 GMT -5
Stoney, I think people would start to get suspicious if you started locking up all those young men in your house.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Aug 8, 2008 16:18:44 GMT -5
Damn, I missed the cut off by 6 years. lol!
Anywhooo, the constitutional argument in the Utica curfew proposal I think was that it was only a part of the city and had no means of differentiating between valid excuses, e.g. work, medical emergency. It might fail the overbroad and vagueness test for constitutionality. There also might be a question of equal protection and whether as enforced one race was unfairly discriminated against over another race.
As for other curfews, I think they are constitutional. I just don't like 'em.
As for unenforceable, I would have to say that with no laws there would be total chaos. So laws against robbery, murder, etc. are valid, and they are enforced. We just can't stop a lot of them until after the crime is committed, that's just how our justice system is set up.
Also, taking your argument a step further. Assuming you are correct, would it make logical sense to add yet another unenforceable law that only hurts law abiding people? Telling someone it's against the law to kill someone else unless you're justified is vastly different than telling everyone who is not breaking any laws but is under 15 and out past 10 pm is breaking the law. How would you feel if the U.S. Supreme Court bought that argument in Heller v District of Columbia? Because that's what the gun ban essentially did, hurt the law abiding citizens.
Just my counter-thoughts, in my unwillingness to concede that while I may be wrong, I still do NOT like the idea of a curfew on teens. Then what? Curfew on 24 year olds because they like to party to all hours of the night? Then maybe we can implant everyone with computer chips to monitor every move. The chip could be armed with a shocking device that disables the person temporarily until armed police swat can arrive and carry the person away.
|
|
|
|
Post by tanouryjr on Aug 8, 2008 22:01:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Aug 8, 2008 22:06:01 GMT -5
I'd say unenforceable because it's doubtful that the UPD would want to start locking up hundreds of youngsters when, en masse, they hit the streets in protest. The curfew would lose this first test. CNN would show up, parents would start fighting about whose fault is whose, whose child is whose, etc. Politicians would immediately turn tail and run for that line of trees. Zecco would be burned in effigy in every neighborhood from Buffalo to Albany. He must know that. He must have been sweating that a fight for his constituents would succeed. Or my imagination is over heated. It happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Aug 8, 2008 22:10:12 GMT -5
The World's Smallest Political Quiz
While it may be a bit simplistic, it definitely shows the limitations of the usual left-right (or liberal-conservative) single-axis paradigm OK, I might become a Libertarian. Do they serve donuts at meetings? (The World's Shortest Loyalty Test.) |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Aug 9, 2008 6:55:43 GMT -5
Yup, from the article: "The court found that juveniles have the right to free movement, a right protected under the 14th Amendment. " |
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Aug 9, 2008 7:16:18 GMT -5
It is called democracy. Everyone in this country has the right to free movement, unless they are incarcerated.
A curfew on juveniles might not have the desired effect on crime, so then they could raise the age to 21. Possibly alcohol related problems might be next. Maybe they could impose a curfew on bars and restaurants, and make them close at 10 PM. Then convenience stores contribute to loitering during the night. Close all 24 hour convenience stores at 10 PM also. Before long we have legislated ourselves into a communistic state controlled atmosphere, where "freedom" is very narrowly defined.
In most cases where curfews are imposed and enforced, you see soldiers in the streets enforcing the curfew. Is that what we want in the home of the brave and the land of the FREE?
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Aug 9, 2008 18:54:19 GMT -5
One of the larger surprises waiting for me, when I took up school teaching after retiring from business, was parental attitudes. Not all by any means, but quite a few parents expect the schools to babysit their kids and to bring them up while they're at it. They've absolved themselves from such responsibility, because they live in a country where there are so many organizations ready to step in and do a half-assed job for them. Christopher Lasch covered this phenomenon quite well in his book, "The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations," written in the late 1970's. His premise was that we live in a "therapeutic society," where parents are encouraged to turn over their duties to specialists who supposedly know better ... the teacher, the therapist, the doctor, the coach, the librarian, etc.
I will not at all be surprised to read that a mother or father tries to explain to the judge that the reason why their son stayed out until 3 a.m. and got into trouble was because:
a. the city failed to enact a curfew to keep him off the street, or
b. the terms and conditions of an existing curfew were not to the family's liking.
Someone should explain to them that parenting is hard work, with few immediate rewards, that requires constant vigilance and nerves of steel. It is not for the feint hearted. It is not for the
weak willed. It is not for the weak minded.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Aug 9, 2008 19:33:06 GMT -5
Another theory that shouldn't be discounted states that since the late 1800's we are no longer in fear of dying on a day to day basis. Before the industrial revolution, before the advances in medicine, travel, communication we still were not actually at the "top of the food chain". Farmers had to scratch out a living for themselves on their own land, communities could be felled by the flu or smallpox, disasters like famine, flood or plague were common occurances.
BUT.......
With the advances of the modern world, we no longer feel it necessary to protect ourselves, after all, we have all this technology that will do it for us. Thereby, we don't teach our kids to be citizens anymore, why should we? Thats what TECHNOLOGY is for. Teachers will use technology to instill pride in our kids won't they? We don't need to anymore, its all over the TV and internet as to how we SHOULD behave, right?
My favorite saying now is....
I can't wait for the comet to hit.
That'll separate the men from the boys.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Aug 9, 2008 20:45:36 GMT -5
There's truth in that, Dan. The world, including America, used to be a tough place to live in. "Making a living" was taken literally. If a family didn't make it for some reason, they starved and the dumb ones were culled from the human breeding stock. Natural selection. Family and possibly churches might help somewhat, but most people had enough to do to keep their own bodies and souls together. Except for the wealthy, education was pretty basic and directed toward essential life skills. Off the farm, children learned trades to equip them to earn money or just their keep in some instances.
Life has changed over the past 200 years. Lasch's "Diminishing Expectations" referred to the expectation of ourselves to independently navigate our ship through life. On the other hand, people's expectations of a full teat never stop growing.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Aug 10, 2008 7:16:45 GMT -5
Comet strike, Dan.
Now I have to go find my copy of "Lucifer's Hammer"
I haven't seen it in a couple of decades, hope I didn't give it away.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Aug 10, 2008 7:26:00 GMT -5
Great novel Clarence. I read it back about '98.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ralph on Aug 11, 2008 1:13:02 GMT -5
You have all hit on great points, Dave hit on the reason we seem to "need" this now. It won't happen......bottom line.....it'll cost too much. You will need more cops to enforce it ( not enough gets enforced around here anyway because there are not enough cops), suitable transportation for the hordes, extra staff to do the paperwork......a place to put them, social workers to babysit them......if they are there too long you will have to offer them some nourishment, you will also need monitors to monitor the monitors watching the social workers (and don't forget the shrinks)....more city lawyers to fight the lawsuits that will come our way, etc, etc, etc. As I used to tell people before and when I ran for office, "You can have anything your heart desires from City Government, so long as you don't mind paying for it" The City would love to do fun stuff like this each and every week, (it sure helps keep your relatives off the street and employed) but most feel that the taxpayers would balk at the minimum 27.5% tax increase each and every year. If they want to stay out after dark and play?  ? Give 'em all a box of razor blades and let 'em play in traffic. |
|
?