TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Age discrimination in America

Age discrimination in America

This is one example of "teen curfiews" that have cropped up across the USA in cities and towns big and small:

quote:

Publication Date: Friday Jun 9, 1995 POLICE: East Palo Alto approves teen curfew City Council action goes into effect immediately by Don Kazak Teen-agers younger than 18 have to be off the streets in East Palo Alto by 11 p.m. every night, unless they have a valid reason for being out. On a 4-1 vote, the East Palo Alto City City Council Monday approved a youth curfew as an urgency ordinance, which means that it went into effect immediately. Information about how many people, if any, have been warned about the curfew since Monday night were not available from East Palo Alto police by Thursday afternoon. The curfew was recommended by the city's advisory Public Safety Commission and strongly endorsed by Police Chief Wesley Bowling, who took over as chief in December and is aggressively changing the department's relationship with the community. In addition to supporting the curfew, Bowling is also expanding the community policing program throughout the department, attempting to establish better rapport between police and community. Bowling sees the curfew as a preventive measure. Vice Mayor Sharifa Wilson cast the dissenting vote Monday night after asking several questions. Council member Myrtle Walker also raised some concerns, but voted for the ordinance. Wilson's fear is that teens as young as 12 will be handcuffed and put into the back of police cars for transport to the police station if they are found outside without a parent, a legal guardian or a legitimate reason for being out that late at night. The curfew also has bite to it--youths caught out late at night by police will be subject to a $250 fine for the first offense and a $500 fine for subsequent offenses. Those fines would be the responsibility of the parents to pay. The fines won't start for at least a month, however, as Bowling agreed to simply issue warning letters instead of citations for the first month. Any Council fears were eased by making the curfew a one-year trial, and Bowling pledged to give the Council thorough information on the numbers of youths cited and the circumstances. Bowling also promised that the police won't be heavy-handed in enforcing the curfew. "The idea isn't to terrorize our kids," Bowling told the Council. "We'll use lots of discretion (about who gets stopped and questioned)." He said he would train his officers so that once a youth is stopped late at night while going home from work or a supervised social function, the same youth won't be stopped several times by several other officers the same night. "It's up to the officers to listen to the radio," he said. "It's all in the training of how best to enforce this without seeming like a Gestapo." No members of the public spoke against the ordinance. Moses Webbs, the head of the Public Safety Commission, said simply, "We think it's important. We think it's needed." Luther Jackson, a member of Just Us, the citizens group that performed anti-drug foot patrols three years ago during the height of the city's drug violence, also concurred. "It's a burden only to those who want to break the law," he said. Bowling said young people out late for jobs, church socials or even family errands to the corner store have nothing to fear--as long as those journeys and errands can be verified by someone else. If not, the young person will be taken to the police station while a parent is contacted, Bowling said. Eventually, Bowling hopes to have a building in the city to take the young people to temporarily, instead of having to make them wait at the police station. While the city has come a long way from 1992 and the 42 homicides that occurred that year, there continue to be violent crimes in the city. Drug dealing may be more circumspect, but it still exists. Bowling said 88 juveniles have been arrested since Jan. 1. He requested that the ordinance be adopted on an urgency basis because schools get out next week, meaning a lot of young people will have more time on their hands and will be staying out later at night. If the law hadn't been passed on an urgency basis, the city would have had to wait six weeks to implement it.

I've also read that Great Britain has been toying with the idea of importing these type of measures. I'm not sure if they have yet or not. I'm not sure about Canada either, but I wouldn't be surprised if these type of youth curfiews existed there as well.

Basically this is another excuse for police to harass people and abuse their civil rights. I know for a fact that police tend to target young people to pull over in road side stops because I've had friends tell me stories of how they are pulled over for no reason; their cars searched. I've also had police tail my vehicle (both alone, and with friends). I see no other reason that they would have singled me out other than the fact that I am young. If I were darker complected I'm sure that that would be even more "probable cause" in some of these officers' minds.

Driving back from New Mexico into West Texas I saw a group of 3 young people whose trunk was being searched for probably no reason. It doesn't matter if they were speeding, that's still not probable cause to throw peoples' belongings on the side of the road to search their trunk. It makes me quite angry to be honest because it's another example of age discrimination. It's easy to beat up on the little guy who is virtually politically powerless.

*topic of discussion: age discrimination*

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2001/w080801a.html

August 8, 2001 -- Chicago Parent Challenges Teen Curfew



CHICAGO -- Nancy Hodgkins, a mother who last year persuaded a federal judge to declare

the state's curfew law unconstitutional, is involved in her third curfew lawsuit in two years, The Chicago Tribune reported.

According to the Tribune, she is now challenging the Indiana General Assembly's most recent effort to govern the nighttime activities of teenagers.

The lawsuit filed last month in United States District Court in Indianapolis is part of a continuing effort to challenge state and local curfew laws across the country. The movement comes as hundreds of communities embrace curfews as a means to combat crime and protect children.

"If the government wants to parent our kids, then they can stock the refrigerator and help pay for their education," said Hodgkins, a co-owner of an antique shop. "I don't think the government needs to be involved in decisions about families."

City officials overwhelmingly support curfews, according to a survey from the National Conference of Mayors. For many parents, a legal curfew is a powerful argument to rebut the pleadings of teenagers that they should be allowed to stay out into the wee hours.

"The vast majority of parents support the curfew," said Beth White, Indianapolis' deputy corporation counsel. "Regardless of how mature a parent thinks their child is ... we don't believe a blanket parental discretion is a good tool."

But the July 2000 ruling striking down the old Indiana law has shaken confidence in the curfew's legal validity. The new law went into effect in May, even as opponents prepared to challenge it in court.

A co-sponsor of the new law, Democratic state Rep. Duane Cheney, said last week that he expects the Indiana law or a similar one to head to the United States Supreme Court for a final determination.

"I'm open to anyone's idea on what will work," Cheney said.

On the heels of last summer's ruling in Indiana, courts have recently struck down curfew ordinances in New Jersey and Alaska as too restrictive. Courts have not spoken with any consistency, though, as local ordinances have been upheld in Virginia, Texas and the District of Columbia.

In the meantime, others are being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union as violations of the First Amendment rights of free speech for children and the parents' due process rights to determine the care, custody and control of their children.

"Local officials can muddle along knowing they'll get sued by the ACLU and they probably have a 50-50 chance of winning," said Nadine Strossen, a professor of law at New York Law School and president of the ACLU.

"There is so much PR value in curfews in that [officials are] being able to say they're doing something for kids and safety. That's the sound bite they're using."

The Indiana law is unusual because it is statewide. Most curfew laws are local. Chicago has a weekday 10:30 p.m. curfew for children under age 17 and a weekend curfew of 11:30 p.m. Laws and curfews are different in other Illinois communities.

Critics say curfews are too often enforced haphazardly and may be used to target racial minorities. Studies have long questioned their effectiveness.

"I think people are taking a long and serious look at just how many decisions they want government to make for them," said John Krull, Executive Director of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. The ICLU is handling the case for the Hodgkins family.

"In this case, with the latest Indiana curfew law, you had legislators saying the final authority with raising children rested not with parents but with politicians," Krull said. "That's what this is ultimately about."

Age discrimination is, without a doubt, the single greatest inequity remaining in most of western society.

I very much disagree with the statement that it's the largest discrimination, or a discrimination at all. Thousands of small towns and cities have these curfews...it's old news. I think that some people cry foul on it simply for the fact that many kids these days are undisciplined and the lack of parental care/teaching is the root cause. There is absolutely no reason kids should be out after 11pm 99% of the time...There are instances such as some weekend and summer nights after events are held where it should be allowed. However, the main reason the curfews are implimented in the first place is the rash of problems that underage people have caused/may cause in the town that it's implemented. Very few towns/cities have underage clubs or establishments where they can be as a group late at night. Only larger cities seem to have these clubs and they deal with probably many more problems than just minors...(i.e. drugs/violence/etc). Once you are 18, the law doesn't apply, and the opportunity to go out late and club or whatever increases.

All the towns around my area had these laws when I grew up and the were there for protective reasons. There were almost NO instances where the law had to even be used. I just guess we were brought up a little more disciplined and respectful of others back in the day.

I agree they can't be too restrictive or penalizing...more over a simple go home or I'll take you there...I don't think there needs to be stiff fines on the simple first couple events, but in this day, younger and younger kids are getting into more and more trouble and making the news.

I hate to play devils advocate...but when you get older you appreciate a quiet night where kids don't have the ability to run around and cause havoc in the neighborhood via curfew, or simple parenting skills.

As far as what's most discriminatory...I think we are at a point where (in the job place) reverse discrimination, and filling quotas has become the most unfair practice today. That's another discussion/argument by itself.

quote:

Originally posted by PhloTron I very much disagree with the statement that it's the largest discrimination, or a discrimination at all. Thousands of small towns and cities have these curfews...it's old news.

Slavery existed for millenia. The fact that it was old didn't have anything to do with how justified it was.

quote:

I think that some people cry foul on it simply for the fact that many kids these days are undisciplined and the lack of parental care/teaching is the root cause. There is absolutely no reason kids should be out after 11pm 99% of the time...There are instances such as some weekend and summer nights after events are held where it should be allowed.

Why shouldn't kids be able to go out after 11pm?

quote:

However, the main reason the curfews are implimented in the first place is the rash of problems that underage people have caused/may cause in the town that it's implemented.

Punishing a group of people for the actions of a few of them is not a valid or equitable modus operandi for maintaining order.

quote:

All the towns around my area had these laws when I grew up and the were there for protective reasons. There were almost NO instances where the law had to even be used. I just guess we were brought up a little more disciplined and respectful of others back in the day.

Well, that's funny. When I was in high school, I used to go jogging every night at midnight. But I guess you're right, I should have been thrown in jail for it. I should have been more considerate of all the people I was harming by merely exiting my place of residence at such an ungodly hour.

quote:

As far as what's most discriminatory...I think we are at a point where (in the job place) reverse discrimination, and filling quotas has become the most unfair practice today. That's another discussion/argument by itself.

I agree that reverse discrimination is a serious problem. However, I don't think it really compares. The massive deprivation of the right of a huge section of the population to simply take part in simple, harmless human activity under the vague criteria that "most" of them are less "mature" than "most" other people is so utterly beyond rational justification that to think I am the same species as someone who might find it persuasive causes me physical pain.

Ugh... In my state (Georgia) there is a statewide Midnight curfew for anyone under 18. It really, really blows. We've been haggled by the cops for it before, who've threatened to take us all to jail (they havent... yet).

I cant tell you how often this law is simply ignored by the teenage population. It wont stop any kids AT ALL, its just going to give the police one more useless thing to chase. People around here obey this law as much as they do for jaywalking, underage smoking/drinking, and sex. Whats worse, is the law only applies for people outdoors or driving. Meaning you can be at a party until midnight and not be legally allowed to drive home.

Whatever, that law can go fuck itself, it hasnt stopped me before and it never will.

I am not sure if here in Seattle has a underage curfew, but me and a big group of my friends go every saturday morning (3-7 am) and ride downtown and the skateparks. Police usually don't stop us unless there is traffic around and we are still riding in the street, and even if they do stop us, we usually just get told to ride on the sidewalk, but personally we just wave at any cops we see because I believe they are out keeping us safer so that we can ride at this time. (Nevermind the fact that riding a BMX in a skatepark is illegal ) But, back to the topic, I do believe that age discrimination is a big issue, as I have been stopped many a time for no apparent reason and questioned, but I do not mind if the police still keep those who are committing crimes wary.

I'm a firm advocate of age discrimination (to some degree). As Arbiter can attest to!

I have been reevaluating my stance on this issue in the past few days in light of the recent events surrounding my dad's car being tagged with spray paint overnight. The car was parked in the neighborhood where my family has lived for ~20 years; a neighborhood with little to no gang activity. I suppose it's possible that an 80 year old man drove around spray painting cars, but we all know it was more than likely a younger person who commited these crimes of vandalism.

However, I still tend to come to the conclusion that it's unfair to punish and limit the civil rights of an entire age group over the juvenile crimes of a small minority.

I feel we should be looking at ways of reducing juvenile crime that don't endanger law abiding citizens' civil rights, and we should be addressing the underlying causes of juvenile crime instead. In my mind teen curfews are another example of politicians' willingness to obtain votes at any cost. Who better to pick on than those who can't vote?

p.s. He got the paint off.

Well although I completely disagree with curfews, I think that I will never deviate from the stances I expressed in these previous discussions ...

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...=discrimination

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...on&pagenumber=4

Unbelievable! In the first half of the 20th century, blacks were the oppressed group of society; now in the new millennium society is cracking down on young people! "A legitimate reason for being out at night"...what bullshit. That's almost like asking a black person for a "legitimate reason" for driving a nice car. I just can't believe what I'm seeing here, I think young people are being shit upon for no apparent reason.

And as far as I know, Canada doesn't have anything like this (at least not in the cities.)

quote:

Originally posted by Shad0wmaster Unbelievable! In the first half of the 20th century, blacks were the oppressed group of society; now in the new millennium society is cracking down on young people! "A legitimate reason for being out at night"...what bullshit. That's almost like asking a black person for a "legitimate reason" for driving a nice car. I just can't believe what I'm seeing here, I think young people are being shit upon for no apparent reason. And as far as I know, Canada doesn't have anything like this (at least not in the cities.)

I was only able to find one example of this in Canada, but it's not surprising that it's more of an occurance in the US.

We all have our quirky laws ...

http://www.vancourier.com/015202/news/015202nn2.html

i like how they say "children under 17."

i don't know about you, but i'm 16 and i don't really consider myself a 'child.'

what about people who WORK late? fridays and saturdays i don't even get off work until 11.

adults who put no faith in the actions of their kids are asking for them to rebel and break rules.

AND it's really cool how they are going to charge the PARENTS for the ticket the kid gets. what a great way to encourage domestic abuse. i know a few kids whose parents would slap them around if they brought home a $250 ticket...

Some more examples of age discrimination

age based sexual consent laws

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=128618

youth drinking laws

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...hlight=drinking

quote:

Originally posted by prolikewhoa i like how they say "children under 17." i don't know about you, but i'm 16 and i don't really consider myself a 'child.'

You are legally considered an infant until the age of 18.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I'm a firm advocate of age discrimination (to some degree). As Arbiter can attest to!

Indeed, but when it comes to dispelling the myth that we grow more mature with age, I think this thread contains all the evidence I'll ever need:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=131279

Oh Jesus Grow up...

When you do you will see that curfews are just a means to allow police to detain minors that would otherwise be causing crime. I think its quite resaonable that underage people roaming the streets after 11pm are generally up to no good. If you are not roaming the streets but going to and from home then how do the police know? They will ask you! For people just going about their business its a minor inconvenience, for anyone else its a deterrent and that is the point. Safer streets for you and your friends.

Its a small price to pay.

Geckos

quote:

Originally posted by Geckos Oh Jesus Grow up...

I'm old enough that I am no longer subject to these curfiew laws. That still hasn't changed my opinion on the subject.

quote:

When you do you will see that curfews are just a means to allow police to detain minors that would otherwise be causing crime. I think its quite resaonable that underage people roaming the streets after 11pm are generally up to no good. If you are not roaming the streets but going to and from home then how do the police know? They will ask you!

Hahah Let me tell you. When I was in high school I was a volunteer juror in my city for something called "teen court" for several weeks. Basically this is a court that deals with juvinile offenders instead of adults. Most of the cases were involving teen curfew violators, and to be honest none of the kids were up to any trouble before they were "escorted" by the police and given citations. In one of the cases the underaged kids were playing in their camp (like a summer camp) and they strayed just outside the boundaries of the camp. None of them had watches so they had no idea that they were in violation of the curfew law. I supported giving them the least punishment possible (5 or 10 hrs of community service). We all decided that this was to be our sentence. So basically they were given 5 or 10 (I can't remember exactly it was a while back) hours of community service by us (the jury panel) for doing nothing other than losing track of time, being at the wrong place at the wrong time, and of course being the wrong age at the wrong time. After that experience as a juror for my fellow peers (I was 17 then and exempt from the curfew law at that age), I came to realize these laws as a form of discrimination and abuse of civil rights.

I didnt say they are not open to abuse and that is a problem of any implementation of the law. We have a situation in society where independant reviews of law enforcement are not de rigeur. As with any democratic system their are checks and balances but for some reason we have this blind spot when it comes to law enforcement. The police are often viewed as sacrosanct and that is plainly not the case as they are just as susceptible to the corruption of their duties as anyone else. It just happens to be that their duties involve the law of the land.

As an example, the casual disregard of most corporations of the rights of the individuals that work for them is as rampant as aids. The eternal fight for the individual to be treated with respect by corporations who's only concern is the bottom line is legendary. Why is our society like this? We live in a democratic western society based on capatalist financial values and because of this, any occupation is open to corruption of it duties by financial influences that do not give a damn about laws they can manipulate, morality that is not enforced or unethical behaviour that does not effect their reputation.

We have checks and balances for them and we need them for law enforcement. Regular auditing of work practices and evaluations are necessary to ensure that laws like this are not abused or interpreted in a fashion that suits themselves.

Regards

Geckos

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.