Tripod Home | Work & Money | Politics & Community | Living & Travel | Daily Scoop

POLITICS & COMMUNITY

Menolly: As a parent of 4 teenagers, I feel that it is my responsibility to be the guardian of where my children are at night. Crime-prevention begins with knowing right from wrong, not from being confined to quarters just because one is under a certain age. Simply speaking, we need less government, not more. Who knows what they will try to regulate next?

LowKeyCat: The imposition of a curfew is an extremely offensive violation of basic human rights. There are a vast number of valid, moral and legal reasons for a teenager to be in a public place at night. The fact that there are those who abuse their freedom gives *nobody* the right to limit the freedom of upstanding citizens, which this curfew will do. When will we get the common sense to call a juvenile delinquent a juvenile delinquent and put them through the wringer like they desperately deserve? Treat slime like slime, treat the respectable with respect!

Robert_E: I believe a curfew is usurpation of individual rights. Young people have the same rights as adults. Their rights are not held for them by someone else until they reach a 'magic age'. It sends an overwhelming message to young people that society views them collectively with suspicion and distrust. No wonder young people become alienated and estranged from society! I as a parent should decide if it is OK for my children to be out after 11; not someone else. I fear this is another instance where aging Baby Boomers and other elderly would rather young people be "seen but not heard".

spagna: If more kids were brought up with the proper values and more parents gave a damn about their kids, we wouldn't have these types of problems (teenagers out late at night causing havoc). So, instead of addressing the real issue, government is trying to put a band aid on it. They should address the real issue of (some) parents not caring where or what their children are doing.

I live in a gated community of almost 400 homes. We have a clubhouse that is common property of all homeowners. We still have problems with vandalism and property being destroyed even though it's all of our property and all of us must pay for the repairs.

Again, the problem is that kids are not brought up with the right values (e.g. respect for property of others as well as their own).

Antlej: I do agree with Clinton on this one. Children have no business being out on the streets past say 11:00pm. All the stores are closed, so why would they need to be on the streets? That is my opinion on Teen Curfews. Jim Antlej

daisyface: I have mixed opinions on this issue. I think that it certainly does have good intentions, but how many more laws do teens need for breaking? Are we really prepared to prosecute hundreds of teens for a irrelevant crime such as this? Why not concentrate on criminals and young children to prevent crime, not on teens who will get a kick out of breaking yet another unnecessary law.

bird1: Curfews should be taken care of at home. A majority of our parents today have become so lax in their parental duties that as long as Suzy and Jr. aren't cramping the parent's life-style, it doesn't matter how late Suzy and Jr. stay out. The government has its' fingers in too many areas of our life already..I say "Parents turn your life around...become responsible adults...love the children you brought into this world...give them a moral upbringing...make rules...stick with them....TOUGH LOVE WORKS...Children and Teens may not act like it but they equate love with discipline!!! I know, I work with 534 children 5 days a week." Children and youth need responsibilities, i.e. chores! This teaches discipline and gives them a sense of self-accomplishment. So what if they gripe...we do too..but we have to go to work everyday to be able to put food before them. If the parents won't take responsibility by enforcing curfew...then yes, the community should! Children under 18 should be in the bed by 10:30 on any week night! It works!!! "Bring up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it." Proverbs (Holy Bible) Thanks for listening.

Eriond: I think it's the parents responsibility to know where their child is. Sure, this might be hard at times, but if you really cared and looked after your child,then you wouldn't have that problem, because the kid wouldn't be out doing bad things. Basically, you had the kid, and you have to accept the responsibility.....

joep: It is bullshit to treat this country's young people like second-class citizens. There is nothing we can do about Clinton and his wife screwing up their kid's life, but these two unbelievably self- righteous dipwads need to leave other kids alone! Let's get the Clintons the hell out of our lives, OK? You vote for your lesser evil, and I will vote for mine, but let's none of us vote for the Clintons this next time around!

soulmates: This is just one more step in big-brothers attempt to CONTROL all aspects of life in this country. This is the same type of control that is embraced by organized religion .. we will tell you how to dress, when to go to bed, what superstition you will believe in, etc. This country needs less control from the white protestant majority and their guide to ignorance .... the so-called holy bible.

barrya: Legislating social behavior is always controversial and difficult. The only way to prevent our young people from being involved in inappropriate behavior is teaching them proper principles. As a parent, I believe this can best be done in the home. Unfortunately, many youth come from home situations where they are not given adequate training (IMHO) and consequently cannot make the distinction yet between proper and improper actions. There are also times when the best training cannot help, but these generally occur at times when proper supervision is absent. There is no clear solution to this. The problem cuts across all social and economic boundaries, and there are many varying views on what the root of the problem is, let alone what the best solution should be. I do see curfews as a restriction that will inconvenience many that do not need such restraints, but this is often the case in a society ruled by law; that the majority of those who obey the law are the one least in need of the discipline the law attmepts to instill. The question is are the majority more interested in not having the restriction than they are with not having the youth crime and violence (not to mention the long-term social impact) it is attempting to reduce? The only alternatives I can think of is holding parents legally responsible for the action of their children. While I many would agree with this, it also implies less than ideal 'restriction' to many others I support the law in principle because I have always imposed a curfew on my children (much earlier than 11:00!).

pyperJ: Rights must be balanced with responsibility. If you do not hold a minor responsible for his own actions, how can you expect her to value her rights as a citizen? Are teens even full citizens ? They cannot vote, enter into contracts, or do many of the things adults do. Why should they have all the rights/freedoms of an adult if they do not have the same responsibilities?

nanderson: Yes, I think there should be a curfew and the parents should be responsible for their children being home at a reasonable hour during the week. Why should any teen be out after 10:30 on a weeknight. What about a weekend curfew for college students? I live in a college town and have heard of curfews in other college towns. College students cannot be on the borough streets after a certain hour. They can be on college property all night just not on borough streets.

Tongass: I do not believe it is the responsibilty of the federal government to set curfews on its citizens (teens), nor is it the role of the state government. Local communitites should have this responsibility with the consent of its citizens. I firmly believe it is the responsibility of parents to set rules and guidelines for their children, but many parents are so busy with their own concerns and interests they have no time to consider their children. Some view their children as adults, capable of making sound decisions, while other parents are not capable of making sound decisions for themselves. The lack of taking responsiblity on the part some parents is causing the role of government to expand their powers into the everyday life of all citizens. There is also the issue of kids having kids and neither one has the self-control to make proper decisions on what is right and wrong. Many people both young and old are living for today.

kav: Every community in the country has laws to deal with loitering. These laws have been enforced for years and serve a useful purpose. Curfews are nothing but political fodder for the ill-informed. Government intrusion into our personal lives has far exceeded any intent found in the Constitution.

formicacid: we limit everything else underage people can do, why not curfews as well? can't drive until 16, can't vote until 18, can't drink until 21, and now we're considering "can't be out past 11pm until age 18". hey people, let's face it - our land of the free isn't.

Crethar: Apparently you don't agree with curfews. But I have seen them at work and not at work and I much prefer to see teen curfews. It seems that we, as adults have much more legal recourse to adolescent acting out if we can call and complain about curfew violations than we do when we don't have them. There are children in my neighborhood who hang around in my neighborhood in large groups late into the night, every night, harassing all those who pass them by. My wife does not even feel safe to walk out to the car to get something. I like curfews because they force parents to take more responsibility in their childrens' lives instead of just zoning out in front of the T.V.

shill: As I see it, this curfew business imposes a blanket punishment on all who happen to be under the age of 18. Responsible individuals should not be forced to worry about some government-imposed curfew at night. I was hardly a party animal, but on occasion I would stay out at a friend's house (or even at the college library!) until late at night. I can just imagine walking out of a library and being charged with being "disruptive" for breaking curfew! Let the police do their job looking for crime and not snatching up every young-looking person they see on the street. (And one more point: I believe it was Dole who originally suggested curfews. It's not purely a Clinton thang.)

Jelly_Belly: As a teenager I think it is the responsibilty of the parents to control their child. And not the opposite way around. If the government starts banning kids from being places at certin times. They should know well enough that the kids will just keep going out just to rebel. Besides what are they going to do arrest ALL the kids? No we need the jail space for real criminals and we need the cops to be on the lookout for crimes not kids having fun!

balazs: I think that if the home is not providing the proper values then the government should start implementing programs to force mature values upon children. But judging by the amount of corruption just in the government itself, it would never work. We are doomed with the present system.

Dickj: There is no crime problem. No more than the problems of each generation, decade, or century that came before. The perception is one of fear. And we have stood by as that perception is projected to include the young and very young. Look around. Have you noticed the clear lack of entertainment facilities for teens or pre-teens. Our society does not focus on the needs of the people unless there are windfall profits involved. At $4.25 an hour -- the teen is not a viable cause. Popular restraints are placed on the young because the people who are responsible for setting the example will not lead. It is easier to vascilate and place blame and restrictions on the victims. Adults are not acting like adults. They simply take the easy way out. Clinton has again taken the path of least resistence.

litaxktc: There is no need for federal intervention in another local problem. Those areas that need them or want them (curfews) are quit able to make that decision on their own. Curfews are desidedly a local problem...

Love_Burn: I feel that there should be no legalized Curfews! I feel that the government has no right to violate our human rights just because we happen to be minors! I feel that just because we happen to be "minors" does not mean we happen to have a smaller brain than adults! I am very upset on this matter!

TBlackmore: Curfews are needed for teens because some parents turn their kids loose without any idea where the kids are going, who they're going with or what they are doing while they're not at home. I realize that most teens manage to stay out of trouble, but some seem to be looking for it.

Missie: Me..Being a Kid and all..You would expect me to say...something like ...Yea..kids should stay out all night if they want..but truely what I think..is that it should be up to the parents..if the parents trust the kids to be good and do what is right...then yes..let them stay out late..But NO..about the trouble makers that trash the place and do wrong...they should be punished..not the ones doing right...Adults have taken over too much of the kids lives..do this , do that...Why do you want to take more?

kmbrady: Yes localities should be able to impose a curfew. They should also be able to hold parents responsible for teenage actions, but not without providing assistance to parents in controlling teenagers.

Jaynee: One side of me feels that curfews are important. Crime and all that. But another part of me remembers going to Young Life while I was in high school and hanging out at McDonald's afterwards until midnight just gabbing, eating fries and enjoying myself. That's not a bad thing - it was good, wholesome fun! I think that 11 p.m. is stretching it, and most parents and kids would agree that an 11 o'clock curfew even by the PARENTS is a little strict. Maybe 12:30 a.m. would be better. Let's face it, kids are gonna go out no matter WHAT their parents or the law says. So the later they are "allowed" to stay out, the better. Forget 11 p.m. - that's a PIPE dream. Make it a couple hours later, and it's the time I usually came home anyway.

kanel: It is difficult to make such a blanket statement on whether or not to have curfews. It depends upon the individual situation. If a city or town is having difficulty keeping teens out of trouble and keeping them from breaking the law, a curfew may be in order. However, if a town or city has no unusual problems with their teens, I see no need to make such a move. Only those who abuse their rights should have them taken away.

fenian: Against. Because it punishes decent kids as much as bad kids - "you are underage, so you can't be up to any good".

KMorrison: It's a shame it's come to this, but I really see a need for the curfew. I know it's the parents' responsibility to teach their kids responsibility, but it's not being done. I'm an adult, I'm not restricted by a curfew, but I can't go out after dark because the night belongs to the hoodlums.

sorahl: First, I dislike the phrase "basic human rights". I am against this "curfew thing" mostly cuz it just continues to take the focus OFF the parents, where the responsibility lies in raising their kids. This is treating the effect, and not the cause. When will this country wake up?????

AndreaA: No, because parents should be responsible for their teenagers' actions, not the federal government. A 10:30 teen curfew is a violation of our rights as parents.

BirdBrainB: It depends. If it is a school night-yes but if it is a weekend -no because kids should have fun too.

hallm4: Do we really need to make teenagers even more resentful of adults and their ability to dictate our lives and tell us what we can and cannot do? The more rights and privileges stripped from us, the more hostile we become to this world. Teenagers have it rough enough, emotionally, mentally, physically, without having to deal with paranoid/afraid strangers basing their decisions on merely my age, and not me. NO ONE has the right to tell me when to be home except my parents. We don't need to become more of a police state, we need more parents who care where their children are. The government has no right interfering with parents and the raising of their kids. It is the parents' place to deem what is appropriate and not appropriate for their kid to do, and where they are to be. Not the town, not the state, not the government.

ClasicaLeo: I am a teenager. That is enough to say that i am against teen curfews. I think clinton's heart was in the right place, but logically it won't work. Here are a few examples: 1. Football games, expecially highschool football games. You can hardly say those are supervised. Kids could easily come and go. I do tall flags at football games. Don't forget other late night sports events. 2. What about supervised parties? We had a perfectly safe end of the year band party and several of us took a walk at 10:30, in the dark, we were quiet, caused no harm, just wanted a break from the party. Gave us a chance to talk. 3. T.P., need i say more, one of the least destructive funnest, teen pranks that has been going on since the invention of toilet paper. 4. What about kids who live near a movie theatre, walk there before curfew to catch a movie, but the movie gets out after curfew. They need to walk home, but they can't, not without a parent, but what if the parents are at a football game with the rest of their kids? There are plenty of good reason for a curfew, and plenty against, i think something around the time of 1 would be good. recently we had to take our dog to an emergency clinic and got out at about 1, there were entire groups of kids wandering around . Not to say they weren't causing trouble, but what could they be doing around at 1. I am disgusted at the way the society is going downhill, i live in CA, the worst in terms of per student spending and education levels. Yet i manage to maintain an honor student at one of the top highschools in the state, we still run out of paper by second semester. I am as my mom says, the teenager every parent wants, but i also have my share of fun and would hate to think of it going down the tubes becouse of some curfew that the president probably made up just to keep his daughter in check.

Corri: I live in a town that is literally two blocks long (Yellow Springs, Ohio) and after eight, the town is practically dead, except for a few stray cats and some kids who don't want to go home hanging out on the benches. We have an 11:00 curfew which doesn't make sense to me. No one commits crimes or gets into fights so why do they need to drag us home and tuck us in every night? Curfews are in fact constitutional because if you're under 18 you have almost no rights anyway. So until they get that changed, curfews are going to be in effect. Besides, I have a mom and dad who are looking out for me already I don't need another one, Bill. -Sally G. 16 y/o.

logic: Curfews definitely are a case of the government violating basic human rights. If people under 18 are allowed during daylight hours, we should be allowed during nighttime hours. What's the big deal? I can understand why the government would try this as a crime-prevention method but there has to be a better one that doesn't violate the rights of all of us who might simply like to take a walk or something after 10:30 pm.

Monk: Curfews are another idea that Clinton has taken in his effort to emulate a republican. It's really bad. If the parents don't care where their kids are, then should the kids be punished? Noooooo. It's just really retarded. Big brother has enough control already.

FlowolF: While I agree that something must be done about the crime problems in our country, especially teenager commited crimes, the curfew law is entirely the wrong way to go about it. There are obviously many reasons for teenagers to be out at night. To place a curfew on them limits the rights of teens too much. Also, a curfew law will just encourage more rebellion in teens. The kids that this law is intended for, the ones who are commiting crimes, are usually the child of parents who don't care where their child is, and they probably wouldn't care if their kid was arrested or fined for being out late. If we had more caring parents in this world, then we wouldn't need the government to try to step in to try to cover for the parent that isn't paying attention.

Darkstar: Man, am I really burned, I read through almost all the responses when I hit one that just burned me up, its one thing to try to impose a curfew on teens, something I am dead fast against to being with. But I saw this one sugesting or so it seemed a curfew on college students, now come on please get real will you. Since when did "college student" equate under 18 or even 21 for that matter. I will tell you right now a good number of college students are adults over 25, no way in hell are you going to tell me you could impose a curfew on anyone that age the local government would gets its ass sued off, but back to the "teen curfew" I thinks it's just another very good example of this country (the USA) trying to control our every action case in point the telecomunications bill they passed and the Internet, it is and always will be the parent who should impose a curfew not law-makers, as far as teens not being responsible I see more adults being far more irresponsible then most teens, and a curfew will not do any good if the kids do not have moral upbringing, and I don't mean any religion of any type just good comon sense and education on right and wrong and to take responsibility for one's actions no matter what the possible outcome good or bad... Well I fumed my two bits worth as is my right in this country and the right of "ALL" citizens of all ages of the USA...

Motoko: I am a kid, and I think the government curfew on kids is wrong, mostly because all it does in San Francisco, is "dare" my friends to stay out past it. I think that it is a parent's responsibility to control their children. If they can't, then why do they have kids in the first place?