At first glance it sounds intuitive that you would not want juveniles hanging out after 11:00 PM. After all what kid should be out that late. However that intuitiveness begins to breakdown quickly. While an 11 pm curfew might make some sense on a school night, on the weekends that seems rather early for some older teens. Moreover, the question is who should determine the exact time that an older teen needs to be home and what is the goal of the ordinance. If the answer to last question is that it is a tool to reduce crime, we must ask where there is a sufficient drop in juvenile crime to warrant the intrusion of government into the private lives of parents and juveniles to such an extent that the government determines when a minor should be home rather than the parent.
There is some confusion as to whether this would apply to the entire county or if it would also apply to the cities. The City of Davis for instance does not have a curfew, although at one point the city looked into a curfew and decided that it would be problematic.
The problem of course with a curfew is that it would not merely affect minors. It would give law enforcement more tools to harass college aged students first by questioning whether they were a minor, if when they are doing nothing wrong. They could also potentially arrest people until they could prove that they were of age.
Others have expressed concerns that curfews would not prevent trouble but it would merely displace the trouble. Kids would simply move from areas of high visibility to law enforcement–where law enforcement would keep a watchful eye on them–to private residences where parents are not home and other places where law enforcement cannot keep a watchful eye on them.
So do curfews work? That is the key question here, for as I discovered with the issue of gang injunction, a lot of people will support policies that deprive people, even innocent people of their rights, if they believe it makes them safer.
It is interesting to note that the National League of Cities in 2006 took a survey of more than 200 cities with curfews and officials in 96 percent of those cities consider them either very or somewhat effective.
And yet actual statistical analysis paints a very different picture. Daniel Macallair from the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice did a study on the impact of Juvenile Curfew Laws in California.
Here’s his abstract:
In recent years cities and localities across the country have expanded the use of youth curfews to address growing public concern about juvenile crime and violence. By reducing the number of youths on the street during certain hours, curfews are assumed to lesson the number of circumstances in which youth crime can occur. It is also assumed that curfews reduce youth crime by deterring youths from being on the streets at certain hours out of fear of being arrested. Curfews have been widely-cited by policy makers as an effective tool for reducing youth crime. However, despite these assertions, virtually no comprehensive analysis of the effects of these laws has been completed. This study analyzes arrest data from jurisdictions throughout California. It is hypothesized that jurisdictions with strict curfew enforcement will experience lower overall, and serious crime arrests, than jurisdictions with less strict curfew enforcement. Also, because of their emphasis on youth curfew enforcement, jurisdictions with strict youth curfews will have accelerated rates of youth crime reduction in relation to adult crime trends.
His findings however suggest on the contrary:
“Statistical analysis provides no support for the proposition that stricter curfew enforcement reduces youth crime either absolutely or relative to adults, by location, by city, or by type of crime. Curfew enforcement generally had no discernible effect on youth crime. In those few instances in which a significant effect was found, it was more likely to be positive (that is, greater curfew enforcement was associated with higher rates of juvenile crime) than negative.”
He concludes:
“The current available data provides no basis to the belief that curfew laws are an effective way for communities to prevent youth crime and keep young people safe. On virtually every measure, no discernible effect on juvenile crime was observed. In fact, in many jurisdictions serious juvenile crime increased at the very time officials were toting the crime reduction effects of strict curfew enforcement.”
Officials are often supportive of curfews because they are apparently simple solutions that provide no additional financial resources to impose. They give law enforcement a simple tool that they believe can help them fight crime, simply get the troublemakers out of places where they can cause the trouble. But as we suggested above, juveniles are a bit more innovative than adults give them credit for being. So if they are not hanging out at the local hangouts, they’ll find another place to hang out where they will be a lot less visible to law enforcement but perhaps just as troublesome.
Yolo County would be better off if law enforcement would spend their time and energy doing things to reduce crime rather than applying cosmetic bandages that according to most statistical research do not work.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
of course, law enforcement loves curfews and considers them effective
after all, anything that eliminates the need from reasonable suspicion for a detention, as required by law, makes their job a lot easier to do
that doesn’t mean that they are good for the rest of us
–Richard Estes
of course, law enforcement loves curfews and considers them effective
after all, anything that eliminates the need from reasonable suspicion for a detention, as required by law, makes their job a lot easier to do
that doesn’t mean that they are good for the rest of us
–Richard Estes
of course, law enforcement loves curfews and considers them effective
after all, anything that eliminates the need from reasonable suspicion for a detention, as required by law, makes their job a lot easier to do
that doesn’t mean that they are good for the rest of us
–Richard Estes
of course, law enforcement loves curfews and considers them effective
after all, anything that eliminates the need from reasonable suspicion for a detention, as required by law, makes their job a lot easier to do
that doesn’t mean that they are good for the rest of us
–Richard Estes
i have noticed that people do to minors what they’d like to do to the rest of the population, but can’t get away with (e.g. censorship, abortion restrictions, curfews. there is no need for such a law. as a teen, i regularly hung out after 11pm, and to my knowledge broke no laws while doing do.
if the cops are having trouble enforcing the law in yolo county, perhaps the reasons for that should be examined. criminalizing a class of people’s lawful behavior out of doors doesn’t do that.
i have noticed that people do to minors what they’d like to do to the rest of the population, but can’t get away with (e.g. censorship, abortion restrictions, curfews. there is no need for such a law. as a teen, i regularly hung out after 11pm, and to my knowledge broke no laws while doing do.
if the cops are having trouble enforcing the law in yolo county, perhaps the reasons for that should be examined. criminalizing a class of people’s lawful behavior out of doors doesn’t do that.
i have noticed that people do to minors what they’d like to do to the rest of the population, but can’t get away with (e.g. censorship, abortion restrictions, curfews. there is no need for such a law. as a teen, i regularly hung out after 11pm, and to my knowledge broke no laws while doing do.
if the cops are having trouble enforcing the law in yolo county, perhaps the reasons for that should be examined. criminalizing a class of people’s lawful behavior out of doors doesn’t do that.
i have noticed that people do to minors what they’d like to do to the rest of the population, but can’t get away with (e.g. censorship, abortion restrictions, curfews. there is no need for such a law. as a teen, i regularly hung out after 11pm, and to my knowledge broke no laws while doing do.
if the cops are having trouble enforcing the law in yolo county, perhaps the reasons for that should be examined. criminalizing a class of people’s lawful behavior out of doors doesn’t do that.
wu ming: you hit the nail on the head
–Richard Estes
wu ming: you hit the nail on the head
–Richard Estes
wu ming: you hit the nail on the head
–Richard Estes
wu ming: you hit the nail on the head
–Richard Estes
The ordinance as presented to the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Commission was a copy of the Woodland curfew – 10:00 pm during the Winter and 11:00 pm during daylight savings time. The commission recommended that it be one time all the time – 11:00 pm.
I checked with Steve Pierce and was told that the DPD enforces state and federal law and City of Davis’ ordinances. Davis does not have a curfew ordinance for much the same reasons that Doug has put forth.
Instead of a curfew, Davis has a very lively downtown that serves not only the bar-hopping crowd, but also those under 21 with 10:00 pm film festivals, dollar scoop nights, all ages music venues (Delta of Venus). Even the City contributes by holding night events (remember Harry Potter night that lasted until the book was released at midnight? What a wonderful evening where 7-99 year olds could gather and not annoy each other.) A curfew would curtail these types of events and just drive teenage entertainment into private homes (parties) unsupervised by the community.
The ordinance as presented to the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Commission was a copy of the Woodland curfew – 10:00 pm during the Winter and 11:00 pm during daylight savings time. The commission recommended that it be one time all the time – 11:00 pm.
I checked with Steve Pierce and was told that the DPD enforces state and federal law and City of Davis’ ordinances. Davis does not have a curfew ordinance for much the same reasons that Doug has put forth.
Instead of a curfew, Davis has a very lively downtown that serves not only the bar-hopping crowd, but also those under 21 with 10:00 pm film festivals, dollar scoop nights, all ages music venues (Delta of Venus). Even the City contributes by holding night events (remember Harry Potter night that lasted until the book was released at midnight? What a wonderful evening where 7-99 year olds could gather and not annoy each other.) A curfew would curtail these types of events and just drive teenage entertainment into private homes (parties) unsupervised by the community.
The ordinance as presented to the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Commission was a copy of the Woodland curfew – 10:00 pm during the Winter and 11:00 pm during daylight savings time. The commission recommended that it be one time all the time – 11:00 pm.
I checked with Steve Pierce and was told that the DPD enforces state and federal law and City of Davis’ ordinances. Davis does not have a curfew ordinance for much the same reasons that Doug has put forth.
Instead of a curfew, Davis has a very lively downtown that serves not only the bar-hopping crowd, but also those under 21 with 10:00 pm film festivals, dollar scoop nights, all ages music venues (Delta of Venus). Even the City contributes by holding night events (remember Harry Potter night that lasted until the book was released at midnight? What a wonderful evening where 7-99 year olds could gather and not annoy each other.) A curfew would curtail these types of events and just drive teenage entertainment into private homes (parties) unsupervised by the community.
The ordinance as presented to the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Commission was a copy of the Woodland curfew – 10:00 pm during the Winter and 11:00 pm during daylight savings time. The commission recommended that it be one time all the time – 11:00 pm.
I checked with Steve Pierce and was told that the DPD enforces state and federal law and City of Davis’ ordinances. Davis does not have a curfew ordinance for much the same reasons that Doug has put forth.
Instead of a curfew, Davis has a very lively downtown that serves not only the bar-hopping crowd, but also those under 21 with 10:00 pm film festivals, dollar scoop nights, all ages music venues (Delta of Venus). Even the City contributes by holding night events (remember Harry Potter night that lasted until the book was released at midnight? What a wonderful evening where 7-99 year olds could gather and not annoy each other.) A curfew would curtail these types of events and just drive teenage entertainment into private homes (parties) unsupervised by the community.
I have no strong opinion one way or the other on curfews in general. However, it strikes me as quite odd that the county government would take this up. My guess is that, insofar as there may be a problem with teens causing problems late at night, that would be within the cities and not in the unincorporated county lands (save in places like Esparto). As such, the curfew laws should be the business of the city councils, not the county supervisors. If people in Woodland want a curfew, let the Woodland City Council take that up.
That said, the study you cite is a perfect example of why you should never consider the findings of a terribly biased group like the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. They wanted to find that curfews don’t work. So they set up their ridiculously bad research to find just that.
It’s embarrassing that a journalistic outfit with the high standards of the Vanguard — sarcasm intended — would quote from such an idiotic study.
In fact, you would have to be a complete and total moron to accept this premise:
“It is hypothesized that jurisdictions with strict curfew enforcement will experience lower overall, and serious crime arrests, than jurisdictions with less strict curfew enforcement.”
Obviously, places that put in “strict curfew enforcement” are places where there was already a serious youth crime problem or general crime problem. Places without such curfews, generally speaking, would not have such youth crime problems. So this kind of study has a moronic selection bias.
The only reasonable way to look at this question — and obviously the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice is not a reasonable group — would be to take a group of cities which had imposed strict curfew laws and compare the overall and youth crime rates for the 12 months before the curfew was imposed with the first 12 months after the curfew was in place.
If you did that, and you found no effect or worse with the curfews, you could conclude that curfew laws are not beneficial. However, I would highly doubt that that’s what you would find.
What the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice did was to compare the crime rates of places withe curfews, such as East Palo Alto, a very high crime ghetto, with places without curfews, such as Palo Alto or Los Altos, where the low youth crime rates don’t warrant such laws. I can’t believe that anyone over 5 years old would fall for that kind of garbage analysis.
I have no strong opinion one way or the other on curfews in general. However, it strikes me as quite odd that the county government would take this up. My guess is that, insofar as there may be a problem with teens causing problems late at night, that would be within the cities and not in the unincorporated county lands (save in places like Esparto). As such, the curfew laws should be the business of the city councils, not the county supervisors. If people in Woodland want a curfew, let the Woodland City Council take that up.
That said, the study you cite is a perfect example of why you should never consider the findings of a terribly biased group like the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. They wanted to find that curfews don’t work. So they set up their ridiculously bad research to find just that.
It’s embarrassing that a journalistic outfit with the high standards of the Vanguard — sarcasm intended — would quote from such an idiotic study.
In fact, you would have to be a complete and total moron to accept this premise:
“It is hypothesized that jurisdictions with strict curfew enforcement will experience lower overall, and serious crime arrests, than jurisdictions with less strict curfew enforcement.”
Obviously, places that put in “strict curfew enforcement” are places where there was already a serious youth crime problem or general crime problem. Places without such curfews, generally speaking, would not have such youth crime problems. So this kind of study has a moronic selection bias.
The only reasonable way to look at this question — and obviously the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice is not a reasonable group — would be to take a group of cities which had imposed strict curfew laws and compare the overall and youth crime rates for the 12 months before the curfew was imposed with the first 12 months after the curfew was in place.
If you did that, and you found no effect or worse with the curfews, you could conclude that curfew laws are not beneficial. However, I would highly doubt that that’s what you would find.
What the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice did was to compare the crime rates of places withe curfews, such as East Palo Alto, a very high crime ghetto, with places without curfews, such as Palo Alto or Los Altos, where the low youth crime rates don’t warrant such laws. I can’t believe that anyone over 5 years old would fall for that kind of garbage analysis.
I have no strong opinion one way or the other on curfews in general. However, it strikes me as quite odd that the county government would take this up. My guess is that, insofar as there may be a problem with teens causing problems late at night, that would be within the cities and not in the unincorporated county lands (save in places like Esparto). As such, the curfew laws should be the business of the city councils, not the county supervisors. If people in Woodland want a curfew, let the Woodland City Council take that up.
That said, the study you cite is a perfect example of why you should never consider the findings of a terribly biased group like the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. They wanted to find that curfews don’t work. So they set up their ridiculously bad research to find just that.
It’s embarrassing that a journalistic outfit with the high standards of the Vanguard — sarcasm intended — would quote from such an idiotic study.
In fact, you would have to be a complete and total moron to accept this premise:
“It is hypothesized that jurisdictions with strict curfew enforcement will experience lower overall, and serious crime arrests, than jurisdictions with less strict curfew enforcement.”
Obviously, places that put in “strict curfew enforcement” are places where there was already a serious youth crime problem or general crime problem. Places without such curfews, generally speaking, would not have such youth crime problems. So this kind of study has a moronic selection bias.
The only reasonable way to look at this question — and obviously the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice is not a reasonable group — would be to take a group of cities which had imposed strict curfew laws and compare the overall and youth crime rates for the 12 months before the curfew was imposed with the first 12 months after the curfew was in place.
If you did that, and you found no effect or worse with the curfews, you could conclude that curfew laws are not beneficial. However, I would highly doubt that that’s what you would find.
What the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice did was to compare the crime rates of places withe curfews, such as East Palo Alto, a very high crime ghetto, with places without curfews, such as Palo Alto or Los Altos, where the low youth crime rates don’t warrant such laws. I can’t believe that anyone over 5 years old would fall for that kind of garbage analysis.
I have no strong opinion one way or the other on curfews in general. However, it strikes me as quite odd that the county government would take this up. My guess is that, insofar as there may be a problem with teens causing problems late at night, that would be within the cities and not in the unincorporated county lands (save in places like Esparto). As such, the curfew laws should be the business of the city councils, not the county supervisors. If people in Woodland want a curfew, let the Woodland City Council take that up.
That said, the study you cite is a perfect example of why you should never consider the findings of a terribly biased group like the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. They wanted to find that curfews don’t work. So they set up their ridiculously bad research to find just that.
It’s embarrassing that a journalistic outfit with the high standards of the Vanguard — sarcasm intended — would quote from such an idiotic study.
In fact, you would have to be a complete and total moron to accept this premise:
“It is hypothesized that jurisdictions with strict curfew enforcement will experience lower overall, and serious crime arrests, than jurisdictions with less strict curfew enforcement.”
Obviously, places that put in “strict curfew enforcement” are places where there was already a serious youth crime problem or general crime problem. Places without such curfews, generally speaking, would not have such youth crime problems. So this kind of study has a moronic selection bias.
The only reasonable way to look at this question — and obviously the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice is not a reasonable group — would be to take a group of cities which had imposed strict curfew laws and compare the overall and youth crime rates for the 12 months before the curfew was imposed with the first 12 months after the curfew was in place.
If you did that, and you found no effect or worse with the curfews, you could conclude that curfew laws are not beneficial. However, I would highly doubt that that’s what you would find.
What the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice did was to compare the crime rates of places withe curfews, such as East Palo Alto, a very high crime ghetto, with places without curfews, such as Palo Alto or Los Altos, where the low youth crime rates don’t warrant such laws. I can’t believe that anyone over 5 years old would fall for that kind of garbage analysis.
of course, law enforcement would never be biased, just groups opposed to what they want to do that serves their self-interest
any evidence that the study of the Center was flawed other than your ad hominem attacks upon them and your ‘obviously’ this and ‘obviously’ that?
good to see that your way is ‘reasonable’ and the Center’s is not, the old Enterprise style of editorial writing, I guess
by the way, my recollection is that there is no correlation between the severity of crime, juvenile or otherwise, and the adoption of curfews, as I vaguely remember a number of suburban and exurban jurisdictions who adopted them
it was kind of the fad of the day
–Richard Estes
of course, law enforcement would never be biased, just groups opposed to what they want to do that serves their self-interest
any evidence that the study of the Center was flawed other than your ad hominem attacks upon them and your ‘obviously’ this and ‘obviously’ that?
good to see that your way is ‘reasonable’ and the Center’s is not, the old Enterprise style of editorial writing, I guess
by the way, my recollection is that there is no correlation between the severity of crime, juvenile or otherwise, and the adoption of curfews, as I vaguely remember a number of suburban and exurban jurisdictions who adopted them
it was kind of the fad of the day
–Richard Estes
of course, law enforcement would never be biased, just groups opposed to what they want to do that serves their self-interest
any evidence that the study of the Center was flawed other than your ad hominem attacks upon them and your ‘obviously’ this and ‘obviously’ that?
good to see that your way is ‘reasonable’ and the Center’s is not, the old Enterprise style of editorial writing, I guess
by the way, my recollection is that there is no correlation between the severity of crime, juvenile or otherwise, and the adoption of curfews, as I vaguely remember a number of suburban and exurban jurisdictions who adopted them
it was kind of the fad of the day
–Richard Estes
of course, law enforcement would never be biased, just groups opposed to what they want to do that serves their self-interest
any evidence that the study of the Center was flawed other than your ad hominem attacks upon them and your ‘obviously’ this and ‘obviously’ that?
good to see that your way is ‘reasonable’ and the Center’s is not, the old Enterprise style of editorial writing, I guess
by the way, my recollection is that there is no correlation between the severity of crime, juvenile or otherwise, and the adoption of curfews, as I vaguely remember a number of suburban and exurban jurisdictions who adopted them
it was kind of the fad of the day
–Richard Estes
The city should have a curfew. I think it’s safe for everyone to ask that minors (under 18) be home after 11pm on school night. If they want to hang out later than that they shouldn’t be on the street. Be at home with friends, or at a friends house. It’s just safe.
I’m 23 and come from a curfew town. There’s no reason for minors to be out that late on school nights.
Even minors who are not doing anything illegal are still probably being a nuisance or asking for trouble. They are probably making noise, or walking around alone, which is why we have kidnappings and rapes.
I also think it is unfair for people to say that it’s unfair to put restrictions on minors. Minors are minors for a reason, they are not adults, and they need guidance, if not from their parents than from the community.
A “Harry Potter Night” is probably in a controlled environment so it doesn’t really count as something that would be out-lawed by police if their parents were there, or a responsible adult.
The city should have a curfew. I think it’s safe for everyone to ask that minors (under 18) be home after 11pm on school night. If they want to hang out later than that they shouldn’t be on the street. Be at home with friends, or at a friends house. It’s just safe.
I’m 23 and come from a curfew town. There’s no reason for minors to be out that late on school nights.
Even minors who are not doing anything illegal are still probably being a nuisance or asking for trouble. They are probably making noise, or walking around alone, which is why we have kidnappings and rapes.
I also think it is unfair for people to say that it’s unfair to put restrictions on minors. Minors are minors for a reason, they are not adults, and they need guidance, if not from their parents than from the community.
A “Harry Potter Night” is probably in a controlled environment so it doesn’t really count as something that would be out-lawed by police if their parents were there, or a responsible adult.
The city should have a curfew. I think it’s safe for everyone to ask that minors (under 18) be home after 11pm on school night. If they want to hang out later than that they shouldn’t be on the street. Be at home with friends, or at a friends house. It’s just safe.
I’m 23 and come from a curfew town. There’s no reason for minors to be out that late on school nights.
Even minors who are not doing anything illegal are still probably being a nuisance or asking for trouble. They are probably making noise, or walking around alone, which is why we have kidnappings and rapes.
I also think it is unfair for people to say that it’s unfair to put restrictions on minors. Minors are minors for a reason, they are not adults, and they need guidance, if not from their parents than from the community.
A “Harry Potter Night” is probably in a controlled environment so it doesn’t really count as something that would be out-lawed by police if their parents were there, or a responsible adult.
The city should have a curfew. I think it’s safe for everyone to ask that minors (under 18) be home after 11pm on school night. If they want to hang out later than that they shouldn’t be on the street. Be at home with friends, or at a friends house. It’s just safe.
I’m 23 and come from a curfew town. There’s no reason for minors to be out that late on school nights.
Even minors who are not doing anything illegal are still probably being a nuisance or asking for trouble. They are probably making noise, or walking around alone, which is why we have kidnappings and rapes.
I also think it is unfair for people to say that it’s unfair to put restrictions on minors. Minors are minors for a reason, they are not adults, and they need guidance, if not from their parents than from the community.
A “Harry Potter Night” is probably in a controlled environment so it doesn’t really count as something that would be out-lawed by police if their parents were there, or a responsible adult.
“The one outcome evaluation uncovered by Ruefle and Reynolds described the efficacy of a Detroit, MI, curfew ordinance evaluated during the summer of 1976. The before-and-after comparison of youth gangs indicated that the presence of a curfew seemed to reduce or suppress crime levels effectively during curfew hours. However, the authors note that this diminished incidence of youth misbehavior while under curfew was accompanied by an observable increase in criminal activity between 2 and 4 p.m. Thus, it appears as if youth misconduct was merely displaced to time periods when the curfew ordinance was not in effect.”
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/reform/ch2_c.html
“The one outcome evaluation uncovered by Ruefle and Reynolds described the efficacy of a Detroit, MI, curfew ordinance evaluated during the summer of 1976. The before-and-after comparison of youth gangs indicated that the presence of a curfew seemed to reduce or suppress crime levels effectively during curfew hours. However, the authors note that this diminished incidence of youth misbehavior while under curfew was accompanied by an observable increase in criminal activity between 2 and 4 p.m. Thus, it appears as if youth misconduct was merely displaced to time periods when the curfew ordinance was not in effect.”
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/reform/ch2_c.html
“The one outcome evaluation uncovered by Ruefle and Reynolds described the efficacy of a Detroit, MI, curfew ordinance evaluated during the summer of 1976. The before-and-after comparison of youth gangs indicated that the presence of a curfew seemed to reduce or suppress crime levels effectively during curfew hours. However, the authors note that this diminished incidence of youth misbehavior while under curfew was accompanied by an observable increase in criminal activity between 2 and 4 p.m. Thus, it appears as if youth misconduct was merely displaced to time periods when the curfew ordinance was not in effect.”
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/reform/ch2_c.html
“The one outcome evaluation uncovered by Ruefle and Reynolds described the efficacy of a Detroit, MI, curfew ordinance evaluated during the summer of 1976. The before-and-after comparison of youth gangs indicated that the presence of a curfew seemed to reduce or suppress crime levels effectively during curfew hours. However, the authors note that this diminished incidence of youth misbehavior while under curfew was accompanied by an observable increase in criminal activity between 2 and 4 p.m. Thus, it appears as if youth misconduct was merely displaced to time periods when the curfew ordinance was not in effect.”
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/reform/ch2_c.html
“of course, law enforcement would never be biased, just groups opposed to what they want to do that serves their self-interest”
Who said law enforcement would not be biased?
“any evidence that the study of the Center was flawed other than your ad hominem attacks upon them and your ‘obviously’ this and ‘obviously’ that?”
Yes. Can’t you read, Richard? The evidence is in the Center’s hypothesis. It is a completely prejudicial hypothesis. Maybe if you read it, again, you will understand what is so ridiculous about such a study. If you still can’t see the flaws, then I can’t help you.
“good to see that your way is ‘reasonable’ and the Center’s is not, the old Enterprise style of editorial writing, I guess”
I am not an Enterprise employee. I don’t speak for that newspaper or have anything to do with the paper’s editorials.
Nonetheless, thank you for noticing that I do understand what is and is not ‘reasonable.’
“by the way, my recollection is that there is no correlation between the severity of crime, juvenile or otherwise, and the adoption of curfews, as I vaguely remember a number of suburban and exurban jurisdictions who adopted them”
If you can cite a fair study that shows that, it would add to this discussion. However, the study cited by the Vanguard is so unfair, I would think even you could see that. Well, maybe not you, Richard.
“of course, law enforcement would never be biased, just groups opposed to what they want to do that serves their self-interest”
Who said law enforcement would not be biased?
“any evidence that the study of the Center was flawed other than your ad hominem attacks upon them and your ‘obviously’ this and ‘obviously’ that?”
Yes. Can’t you read, Richard? The evidence is in the Center’s hypothesis. It is a completely prejudicial hypothesis. Maybe if you read it, again, you will understand what is so ridiculous about such a study. If you still can’t see the flaws, then I can’t help you.
“good to see that your way is ‘reasonable’ and the Center’s is not, the old Enterprise style of editorial writing, I guess”
I am not an Enterprise employee. I don’t speak for that newspaper or have anything to do with the paper’s editorials.
Nonetheless, thank you for noticing that I do understand what is and is not ‘reasonable.’
“by the way, my recollection is that there is no correlation between the severity of crime, juvenile or otherwise, and the adoption of curfews, as I vaguely remember a number of suburban and exurban jurisdictions who adopted them”
If you can cite a fair study that shows that, it would add to this discussion. However, the study cited by the Vanguard is so unfair, I would think even you could see that. Well, maybe not you, Richard.
“of course, law enforcement would never be biased, just groups opposed to what they want to do that serves their self-interest”
Who said law enforcement would not be biased?
“any evidence that the study of the Center was flawed other than your ad hominem attacks upon them and your ‘obviously’ this and ‘obviously’ that?”
Yes. Can’t you read, Richard? The evidence is in the Center’s hypothesis. It is a completely prejudicial hypothesis. Maybe if you read it, again, you will understand what is so ridiculous about such a study. If you still can’t see the flaws, then I can’t help you.
“good to see that your way is ‘reasonable’ and the Center’s is not, the old Enterprise style of editorial writing, I guess”
I am not an Enterprise employee. I don’t speak for that newspaper or have anything to do with the paper’s editorials.
Nonetheless, thank you for noticing that I do understand what is and is not ‘reasonable.’
“by the way, my recollection is that there is no correlation between the severity of crime, juvenile or otherwise, and the adoption of curfews, as I vaguely remember a number of suburban and exurban jurisdictions who adopted them”
If you can cite a fair study that shows that, it would add to this discussion. However, the study cited by the Vanguard is so unfair, I would think even you could see that. Well, maybe not you, Richard.
“of course, law enforcement would never be biased, just groups opposed to what they want to do that serves their self-interest”
Who said law enforcement would not be biased?
“any evidence that the study of the Center was flawed other than your ad hominem attacks upon them and your ‘obviously’ this and ‘obviously’ that?”
Yes. Can’t you read, Richard? The evidence is in the Center’s hypothesis. It is a completely prejudicial hypothesis. Maybe if you read it, again, you will understand what is so ridiculous about such a study. If you still can’t see the flaws, then I can’t help you.
“good to see that your way is ‘reasonable’ and the Center’s is not, the old Enterprise style of editorial writing, I guess”
I am not an Enterprise employee. I don’t speak for that newspaper or have anything to do with the paper’s editorials.
Nonetheless, thank you for noticing that I do understand what is and is not ‘reasonable.’
“by the way, my recollection is that there is no correlation between the severity of crime, juvenile or otherwise, and the adoption of curfews, as I vaguely remember a number of suburban and exurban jurisdictions who adopted them”
If you can cite a fair study that shows that, it would add to this discussion. However, the study cited by the Vanguard is so unfair, I would think even you could see that. Well, maybe not you, Richard.
Don,
I read that entire survey you listed the URL for. Though it was pretty old (1996), it seemed fair and comprehensive. What was interesting to me was that the bit you quoted, about Detroit, was the oldest study that they cited, from 31 years ago.
All of the contrary examples were more recent:
“For example, 3 months after the enactment of the Dallas curfew ordinance, the Dallas Police Department found that juvenile victimization during curfew hours declined by 17.7 percent and juvenile arrests during curfew hours dropped by 14.6 percent, according to the recent OJJDP report.67”
That study does not negate what the Detroit findings were, because it does not look at youth crime rates in the hours not covered by the Dallas curfew.
“New Orleans, which has enacted one of the strictest curfew ordinances in the country, also reports a significant decrease in juvenile crime since its curfew ordinance went into effect in May 1994. The dusk-to-dawn curfew, enacted in response to an escalating level of violent crime involving juveniles as both perpetrators and victims, was influential in decreasing the incidence of youth crime arrests by 27 percent the year after its adoption. In that same time period, armed robbery arrests decreased by 33 percent and auto theft arrests decreased by 42 percent.68”
The New Orleans study, however, looks at overall youth crime, on a before and after basis, and suggests that its curfew did the job as intended.
“A curfew ordinance in Long Beach, CA, amended in January 1994, has enjoyed similar success. In an attempt to meet the needs of the city’s growing population and thwart escalating gang activity, Long Beach officials established a 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew law. The ordinance led to a 14-percent decrease in the average number of crimes committed per hour in 1994, compared with 1993. Gang-related shootings decreased in that time period as well, down nearly 23 percent. However, Chief William Ellis of the Long Beach Police Department acknowledged that Long Beach has experienced displacement of youth delinquency. “In Long Beach,” Ellis said, “approximately twice as many crimes per hour are committed during noncurfew hours as during curfew hours.”69
This looks the same as Detroit’s findings. What neither the Long Beach or Detroit studies say — in this review article — is if the increase in afternoon crime caused the overall crime rate to stay the same. Because, if it increased from 2-4 pm from a very low base, then the overall youth crime rate in both places still may have declined substantially post-curfew.
“Effective curfew programs share several components. Two of the keys to the success of any curfew ordinance are sustained enforcement and community involvement, according to the OJJDP report. Curfew laws are less successful when they are enforced rigorously immediately after adoption, but become more loosely enforced as limited law enforcement resources and personnel are pushed into other policing efforts. City officials ensure a program’s success by making a long-term commitment to enforcement and by enlisting volunteers to fill out paperwork, wait for parents to pick up their children, or give on-the-spot counseling to parents and children.”
I would imagine that there have been more recent studies and fair-minded analyses done since this 1996 article.
Don,
I read that entire survey you listed the URL for. Though it was pretty old (1996), it seemed fair and comprehensive. What was interesting to me was that the bit you quoted, about Detroit, was the oldest study that they cited, from 31 years ago.
All of the contrary examples were more recent:
“For example, 3 months after the enactment of the Dallas curfew ordinance, the Dallas Police Department found that juvenile victimization during curfew hours declined by 17.7 percent and juvenile arrests during curfew hours dropped by 14.6 percent, according to the recent OJJDP report.67”
That study does not negate what the Detroit findings were, because it does not look at youth crime rates in the hours not covered by the Dallas curfew.
“New Orleans, which has enacted one of the strictest curfew ordinances in the country, also reports a significant decrease in juvenile crime since its curfew ordinance went into effect in May 1994. The dusk-to-dawn curfew, enacted in response to an escalating level of violent crime involving juveniles as both perpetrators and victims, was influential in decreasing the incidence of youth crime arrests by 27 percent the year after its adoption. In that same time period, armed robbery arrests decreased by 33 percent and auto theft arrests decreased by 42 percent.68”
The New Orleans study, however, looks at overall youth crime, on a before and after basis, and suggests that its curfew did the job as intended.
“A curfew ordinance in Long Beach, CA, amended in January 1994, has enjoyed similar success. In an attempt to meet the needs of the city’s growing population and thwart escalating gang activity, Long Beach officials established a 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew law. The ordinance led to a 14-percent decrease in the average number of crimes committed per hour in 1994, compared with 1993. Gang-related shootings decreased in that time period as well, down nearly 23 percent. However, Chief William Ellis of the Long Beach Police Department acknowledged that Long Beach has experienced displacement of youth delinquency. “In Long Beach,” Ellis said, “approximately twice as many crimes per hour are committed during noncurfew hours as during curfew hours.”69
This looks the same as Detroit’s findings. What neither the Long Beach or Detroit studies say — in this review article — is if the increase in afternoon crime caused the overall crime rate to stay the same. Because, if it increased from 2-4 pm from a very low base, then the overall youth crime rate in both places still may have declined substantially post-curfew.
“Effective curfew programs share several components. Two of the keys to the success of any curfew ordinance are sustained enforcement and community involvement, according to the OJJDP report. Curfew laws are less successful when they are enforced rigorously immediately after adoption, but become more loosely enforced as limited law enforcement resources and personnel are pushed into other policing efforts. City officials ensure a program’s success by making a long-term commitment to enforcement and by enlisting volunteers to fill out paperwork, wait for parents to pick up their children, or give on-the-spot counseling to parents and children.”
I would imagine that there have been more recent studies and fair-minded analyses done since this 1996 article.
Don,
I read that entire survey you listed the URL for. Though it was pretty old (1996), it seemed fair and comprehensive. What was interesting to me was that the bit you quoted, about Detroit, was the oldest study that they cited, from 31 years ago.
All of the contrary examples were more recent:
“For example, 3 months after the enactment of the Dallas curfew ordinance, the Dallas Police Department found that juvenile victimization during curfew hours declined by 17.7 percent and juvenile arrests during curfew hours dropped by 14.6 percent, according to the recent OJJDP report.67”
That study does not negate what the Detroit findings were, because it does not look at youth crime rates in the hours not covered by the Dallas curfew.
“New Orleans, which has enacted one of the strictest curfew ordinances in the country, also reports a significant decrease in juvenile crime since its curfew ordinance went into effect in May 1994. The dusk-to-dawn curfew, enacted in response to an escalating level of violent crime involving juveniles as both perpetrators and victims, was influential in decreasing the incidence of youth crime arrests by 27 percent the year after its adoption. In that same time period, armed robbery arrests decreased by 33 percent and auto theft arrests decreased by 42 percent.68”
The New Orleans study, however, looks at overall youth crime, on a before and after basis, and suggests that its curfew did the job as intended.
“A curfew ordinance in Long Beach, CA, amended in January 1994, has enjoyed similar success. In an attempt to meet the needs of the city’s growing population and thwart escalating gang activity, Long Beach officials established a 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew law. The ordinance led to a 14-percent decrease in the average number of crimes committed per hour in 1994, compared with 1993. Gang-related shootings decreased in that time period as well, down nearly 23 percent. However, Chief William Ellis of the Long Beach Police Department acknowledged that Long Beach has experienced displacement of youth delinquency. “In Long Beach,” Ellis said, “approximately twice as many crimes per hour are committed during noncurfew hours as during curfew hours.”69
This looks the same as Detroit’s findings. What neither the Long Beach or Detroit studies say — in this review article — is if the increase in afternoon crime caused the overall crime rate to stay the same. Because, if it increased from 2-4 pm from a very low base, then the overall youth crime rate in both places still may have declined substantially post-curfew.
“Effective curfew programs share several components. Two of the keys to the success of any curfew ordinance are sustained enforcement and community involvement, according to the OJJDP report. Curfew laws are less successful when they are enforced rigorously immediately after adoption, but become more loosely enforced as limited law enforcement resources and personnel are pushed into other policing efforts. City officials ensure a program’s success by making a long-term commitment to enforcement and by enlisting volunteers to fill out paperwork, wait for parents to pick up their children, or give on-the-spot counseling to parents and children.”
I would imagine that there have been more recent studies and fair-minded analyses done since this 1996 article.
Don,
I read that entire survey you listed the URL for. Though it was pretty old (1996), it seemed fair and comprehensive. What was interesting to me was that the bit you quoted, about Detroit, was the oldest study that they cited, from 31 years ago.
All of the contrary examples were more recent:
“For example, 3 months after the enactment of the Dallas curfew ordinance, the Dallas Police Department found that juvenile victimization during curfew hours declined by 17.7 percent and juvenile arrests during curfew hours dropped by 14.6 percent, according to the recent OJJDP report.67”
That study does not negate what the Detroit findings were, because it does not look at youth crime rates in the hours not covered by the Dallas curfew.
“New Orleans, which has enacted one of the strictest curfew ordinances in the country, also reports a significant decrease in juvenile crime since its curfew ordinance went into effect in May 1994. The dusk-to-dawn curfew, enacted in response to an escalating level of violent crime involving juveniles as both perpetrators and victims, was influential in decreasing the incidence of youth crime arrests by 27 percent the year after its adoption. In that same time period, armed robbery arrests decreased by 33 percent and auto theft arrests decreased by 42 percent.68”
The New Orleans study, however, looks at overall youth crime, on a before and after basis, and suggests that its curfew did the job as intended.
“A curfew ordinance in Long Beach, CA, amended in January 1994, has enjoyed similar success. In an attempt to meet the needs of the city’s growing population and thwart escalating gang activity, Long Beach officials established a 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew law. The ordinance led to a 14-percent decrease in the average number of crimes committed per hour in 1994, compared with 1993. Gang-related shootings decreased in that time period as well, down nearly 23 percent. However, Chief William Ellis of the Long Beach Police Department acknowledged that Long Beach has experienced displacement of youth delinquency. “In Long Beach,” Ellis said, “approximately twice as many crimes per hour are committed during noncurfew hours as during curfew hours.”69
This looks the same as Detroit’s findings. What neither the Long Beach or Detroit studies say — in this review article — is if the increase in afternoon crime caused the overall crime rate to stay the same. Because, if it increased from 2-4 pm from a very low base, then the overall youth crime rate in both places still may have declined substantially post-curfew.
“Effective curfew programs share several components. Two of the keys to the success of any curfew ordinance are sustained enforcement and community involvement, according to the OJJDP report. Curfew laws are less successful when they are enforced rigorously immediately after adoption, but become more loosely enforced as limited law enforcement resources and personnel are pushed into other policing efforts. City officials ensure a program’s success by making a long-term commitment to enforcement and by enlisting volunteers to fill out paperwork, wait for parents to pick up their children, or give on-the-spot counseling to parents and children.”
I would imagine that there have been more recent studies and fair-minded analyses done since this 1996 article.
One question, for anyone eot answer, before I fly off the handle about this: Would this county curfew just be in effect outside of city lines, or would it also be in action within the city of Davis?
One question, for anyone eot answer, before I fly off the handle about this: Would this county curfew just be in effect outside of city lines, or would it also be in action within the city of Davis?
One question, for anyone eot answer, before I fly off the handle about this: Would this county curfew just be in effect outside of city lines, or would it also be in action within the city of Davis?
One question, for anyone eot answer, before I fly off the handle about this: Would this county curfew just be in effect outside of city lines, or would it also be in action within the city of Davis?
I would hazard a guess that this proposal for a curfew might be related to the increasing level of gang activity in the county, and this would be one tool for law enforcement. I am not saying that I am in favor of the curfew, but I think that might be why it is being proposed. From a purely anecdotal level, I have noticed a lot more tagging occurring in Davis, and more gang crime activity in the county. I believe there is more gang activity happening in the county and in Davis than you might see on the surface and this would be a way to control some of it, at least the juvenile members. But are there better ways to address that problem?
I would hazard a guess that this proposal for a curfew might be related to the increasing level of gang activity in the county, and this would be one tool for law enforcement. I am not saying that I am in favor of the curfew, but I think that might be why it is being proposed. From a purely anecdotal level, I have noticed a lot more tagging occurring in Davis, and more gang crime activity in the county. I believe there is more gang activity happening in the county and in Davis than you might see on the surface and this would be a way to control some of it, at least the juvenile members. But are there better ways to address that problem?
I would hazard a guess that this proposal for a curfew might be related to the increasing level of gang activity in the county, and this would be one tool for law enforcement. I am not saying that I am in favor of the curfew, but I think that might be why it is being proposed. From a purely anecdotal level, I have noticed a lot more tagging occurring in Davis, and more gang crime activity in the county. I believe there is more gang activity happening in the county and in Davis than you might see on the surface and this would be a way to control some of it, at least the juvenile members. But are there better ways to address that problem?
I would hazard a guess that this proposal for a curfew might be related to the increasing level of gang activity in the county, and this would be one tool for law enforcement. I am not saying that I am in favor of the curfew, but I think that might be why it is being proposed. From a purely anecdotal level, I have noticed a lot more tagging occurring in Davis, and more gang crime activity in the county. I believe there is more gang activity happening in the county and in Davis than you might see on the surface and this would be a way to control some of it, at least the juvenile members. But are there better ways to address that problem?
If the rationale is that teens have a higher crime rate than the general population, then the curfew should logically be extended to young adults 18 – 34. From a study in Cambridge, 2001 – 4:
“Overall, the largest proportion of offenders were aged between 18-24 (29% of all offenders). The most prolific offenders, however were those aged between 25 and 34 years old committing on average 2.2 offences in the three year period, compared to 1.9 for offenders of all ages. The number of offences committed by offenders seems to increase with age, reaching a peak in the 25-34 age group and then declining.”
So clearly we should curfew the young adults.
It seems to me that all a curfew does is eliminate the police requirement for probable cause. Just looking young and being out at night would be probable cause.
This proposal, like so many, seems to address a made-up problem, single out one group for the ‘solution’ (because a curfew can be imposed against teens, but not nearly so readily against young adults) — all on the basis of flimsy evidence. And it will either be enforced poorly or selectively. I think the police have better things to do than take teenagers in, or home, simply because they are out at night.
If the rationale is that teens have a higher crime rate than the general population, then the curfew should logically be extended to young adults 18 – 34. From a study in Cambridge, 2001 – 4:
“Overall, the largest proportion of offenders were aged between 18-24 (29% of all offenders). The most prolific offenders, however were those aged between 25 and 34 years old committing on average 2.2 offences in the three year period, compared to 1.9 for offenders of all ages. The number of offences committed by offenders seems to increase with age, reaching a peak in the 25-34 age group and then declining.”
So clearly we should curfew the young adults.
It seems to me that all a curfew does is eliminate the police requirement for probable cause. Just looking young and being out at night would be probable cause.
This proposal, like so many, seems to address a made-up problem, single out one group for the ‘solution’ (because a curfew can be imposed against teens, but not nearly so readily against young adults) — all on the basis of flimsy evidence. And it will either be enforced poorly or selectively. I think the police have better things to do than take teenagers in, or home, simply because they are out at night.
If the rationale is that teens have a higher crime rate than the general population, then the curfew should logically be extended to young adults 18 – 34. From a study in Cambridge, 2001 – 4:
“Overall, the largest proportion of offenders were aged between 18-24 (29% of all offenders). The most prolific offenders, however were those aged between 25 and 34 years old committing on average 2.2 offences in the three year period, compared to 1.9 for offenders of all ages. The number of offences committed by offenders seems to increase with age, reaching a peak in the 25-34 age group and then declining.”
So clearly we should curfew the young adults.
It seems to me that all a curfew does is eliminate the police requirement for probable cause. Just looking young and being out at night would be probable cause.
This proposal, like so many, seems to address a made-up problem, single out one group for the ‘solution’ (because a curfew can be imposed against teens, but not nearly so readily against young adults) — all on the basis of flimsy evidence. And it will either be enforced poorly or selectively. I think the police have better things to do than take teenagers in, or home, simply because they are out at night.
If the rationale is that teens have a higher crime rate than the general population, then the curfew should logically be extended to young adults 18 – 34. From a study in Cambridge, 2001 – 4:
“Overall, the largest proportion of offenders were aged between 18-24 (29% of all offenders). The most prolific offenders, however were those aged between 25 and 34 years old committing on average 2.2 offences in the three year period, compared to 1.9 for offenders of all ages. The number of offences committed by offenders seems to increase with age, reaching a peak in the 25-34 age group and then declining.”
So clearly we should curfew the young adults.
It seems to me that all a curfew does is eliminate the police requirement for probable cause. Just looking young and being out at night would be probable cause.
This proposal, like so many, seems to address a made-up problem, single out one group for the ‘solution’ (because a curfew can be imposed against teens, but not nearly so readily against young adults) — all on the basis of flimsy evidence. And it will either be enforced poorly or selectively. I think the police have better things to do than take teenagers in, or home, simply because they are out at night.
(BTW, that was Cambridge UK, not US, in case that makes any difference).
(BTW, that was Cambridge UK, not US, in case that makes any difference).
(BTW, that was Cambridge UK, not US, in case that makes any difference).
(BTW, that was Cambridge UK, not US, in case that makes any difference).
wu-ming: “as a teen, i regularly hung out after 11pm, and to my knowledge broke no laws while doing do.“
Same here, and my law-breaking was just as likely to be diurnal as nocturnal.
wu-ming: “as a teen, i regularly hung out after 11pm, and to my knowledge broke no laws while doing do.“
Same here, and my law-breaking was just as likely to be diurnal as nocturnal.
wu-ming: “as a teen, i regularly hung out after 11pm, and to my knowledge broke no laws while doing do.“
Same here, and my law-breaking was just as likely to be diurnal as nocturnal.
wu-ming: “as a teen, i regularly hung out after 11pm, and to my knowledge broke no laws while doing do.“
Same here, and my law-breaking was just as likely to be diurnal as nocturnal.
The county curfew is to be enforced (10:00 pm every night, not just school nights and increased to 11:00 pm during daylight savings time) in unincorporated areas outside city limits.
There are many legal reasons a kid can be out of the house past this time. If a family wants to have their high school students in at 10:00 pm then that family can enforce it. A kid who violates the family curfew is not going to follow a government imposed curfew. Teens would not be able to be in attendance at something like Harry Potter night unless accompanied by a parent or guardian becaused it is not a controlled event where the event organizers are in control of the teens. There is no way a teen is going to go to an event like this with a parent. Oh, the embarrassment. However, teens will attend with their friends and the police shouldn’t hassle them if they do and the community should have many events where kids are welcomed to attend in a way that they are comfortable.
Also, UCD has a large number of students each Fall who do not turn 18 until after they come to school. It is patently unfair to enforce the curfew on townies and not on UCD students who are of the same age. It would never work in Davis with its young adult population.
Davis youth need to be aware that the curfew applies once they leave city limits, so no more midnight drives out into the country with your girlfriend, etc.
The county curfew is to be enforced (10:00 pm every night, not just school nights and increased to 11:00 pm during daylight savings time) in unincorporated areas outside city limits.
There are many legal reasons a kid can be out of the house past this time. If a family wants to have their high school students in at 10:00 pm then that family can enforce it. A kid who violates the family curfew is not going to follow a government imposed curfew. Teens would not be able to be in attendance at something like Harry Potter night unless accompanied by a parent or guardian becaused it is not a controlled event where the event organizers are in control of the teens. There is no way a teen is going to go to an event like this with a parent. Oh, the embarrassment. However, teens will attend with their friends and the police shouldn’t hassle them if they do and the community should have many events where kids are welcomed to attend in a way that they are comfortable.
Also, UCD has a large number of students each Fall who do not turn 18 until after they come to school. It is patently unfair to enforce the curfew on townies and not on UCD students who are of the same age. It would never work in Davis with its young adult population.
Davis youth need to be aware that the curfew applies once they leave city limits, so no more midnight drives out into the country with your girlfriend, etc.
The county curfew is to be enforced (10:00 pm every night, not just school nights and increased to 11:00 pm during daylight savings time) in unincorporated areas outside city limits.
There are many legal reasons a kid can be out of the house past this time. If a family wants to have their high school students in at 10:00 pm then that family can enforce it. A kid who violates the family curfew is not going to follow a government imposed curfew. Teens would not be able to be in attendance at something like Harry Potter night unless accompanied by a parent or guardian becaused it is not a controlled event where the event organizers are in control of the teens. There is no way a teen is going to go to an event like this with a parent. Oh, the embarrassment. However, teens will attend with their friends and the police shouldn’t hassle them if they do and the community should have many events where kids are welcomed to attend in a way that they are comfortable.
Also, UCD has a large number of students each Fall who do not turn 18 until after they come to school. It is patently unfair to enforce the curfew on townies and not on UCD students who are of the same age. It would never work in Davis with its young adult population.
Davis youth need to be aware that the curfew applies once they leave city limits, so no more midnight drives out into the country with your girlfriend, etc.
The county curfew is to be enforced (10:00 pm every night, not just school nights and increased to 11:00 pm during daylight savings time) in unincorporated areas outside city limits.
There are many legal reasons a kid can be out of the house past this time. If a family wants to have their high school students in at 10:00 pm then that family can enforce it. A kid who violates the family curfew is not going to follow a government imposed curfew. Teens would not be able to be in attendance at something like Harry Potter night unless accompanied by a parent or guardian becaused it is not a controlled event where the event organizers are in control of the teens. There is no way a teen is going to go to an event like this with a parent. Oh, the embarrassment. However, teens will attend with their friends and the police shouldn’t hassle them if they do and the community should have many events where kids are welcomed to attend in a way that they are comfortable.
Also, UCD has a large number of students each Fall who do not turn 18 until after they come to school. It is patently unfair to enforce the curfew on townies and not on UCD students who are of the same age. It would never work in Davis with its young adult population.
Davis youth need to be aware that the curfew applies once they leave city limits, so no more midnight drives out into the country with your girlfriend, etc.
“However, it strikes me as quite odd that the county government would take this up.”
The people on this blog are always so negative. There is no conspiracy here. The County has had a juvenile curfew ordinance for more twenty years.
There was a recent change in case law concerning curfew laws. This change is being made in the County Code to make the ordinance fit within the new court decision.
“However, it strikes me as quite odd that the county government would take this up.”
The people on this blog are always so negative. There is no conspiracy here. The County has had a juvenile curfew ordinance for more twenty years.
There was a recent change in case law concerning curfew laws. This change is being made in the County Code to make the ordinance fit within the new court decision.
“However, it strikes me as quite odd that the county government would take this up.”
The people on this blog are always so negative. There is no conspiracy here. The County has had a juvenile curfew ordinance for more twenty years.
There was a recent change in case law concerning curfew laws. This change is being made in the County Code to make the ordinance fit within the new court decision.
“However, it strikes me as quite odd that the county government would take this up.”
The people on this blog are always so negative. There is no conspiracy here. The County has had a juvenile curfew ordinance for more twenty years.
There was a recent change in case law concerning curfew laws. This change is being made in the County Code to make the ordinance fit within the new court decision.
No one is suggesting that this is a conspiracy, everyone is however questioning the necessity of a curfew by the county.
No one is suggesting that this is a conspiracy, everyone is however questioning the necessity of a curfew by the county.
No one is suggesting that this is a conspiracy, everyone is however questioning the necessity of a curfew by the county.
No one is suggesting that this is a conspiracy, everyone is however questioning the necessity of a curfew by the county.
The point is we have had one for longer than most of you have been around and it has not been a problem.
Why do you suddenly consider it a problem or even an issue?
Personally, if you want your children out doing things in the middle of the night unsupervised (God only knows what they would be doing) then don’t complain if they get themselves into serious trouble.
The point is we have had one for longer than most of you have been around and it has not been a problem.
Why do you suddenly consider it a problem or even an issue?
Personally, if you want your children out doing things in the middle of the night unsupervised (God only knows what they would be doing) then don’t complain if they get themselves into serious trouble.
The point is we have had one for longer than most of you have been around and it has not been a problem.
Why do you suddenly consider it a problem or even an issue?
Personally, if you want your children out doing things in the middle of the night unsupervised (God only knows what they would be doing) then don’t complain if they get themselves into serious trouble.
The point is we have had one for longer than most of you have been around and it has not been a problem.
Why do you suddenly consider it a problem or even an issue?
Personally, if you want your children out doing things in the middle of the night unsupervised (God only knows what they would be doing) then don’t complain if they get themselves into serious trouble.
As the article indicates, there is no evidence that curfews do anything. I can watch my own kids, I don’t need the police to do it for me.
As the article indicates, there is no evidence that curfews do anything. I can watch my own kids, I don’t need the police to do it for me.
As the article indicates, there is no evidence that curfews do anything. I can watch my own kids, I don’t need the police to do it for me.
As the article indicates, there is no evidence that curfews do anything. I can watch my own kids, I don’t need the police to do it for me.
What I don’t get is why we just have to accept laws that we don’t like because they are already on the books.
What I don’t get is why we just have to accept laws that we don’t like because they are already on the books.
What I don’t get is why we just have to accept laws that we don’t like because they are already on the books.
What I don’t get is why we just have to accept laws that we don’t like because they are already on the books.
“What I don’t get is why we just have to accept laws that we don’t like because they are already on the books.”
What do you mean by ‘we don’t like’?
If a majority of elected representatives doesn’t like a certain law that is on the books, that majority can change the law.
If, however, by ‘we don’t like’ you mean a small number of people, then you are obligated to follow the law or face the consequences, until the law is changed or you change your mind.
“What I don’t get is why we just have to accept laws that we don’t like because they are already on the books.”
What do you mean by ‘we don’t like’?
If a majority of elected representatives doesn’t like a certain law that is on the books, that majority can change the law.
If, however, by ‘we don’t like’ you mean a small number of people, then you are obligated to follow the law or face the consequences, until the law is changed or you change your mind.
“What I don’t get is why we just have to accept laws that we don’t like because they are already on the books.”
What do you mean by ‘we don’t like’?
If a majority of elected representatives doesn’t like a certain law that is on the books, that majority can change the law.
If, however, by ‘we don’t like’ you mean a small number of people, then you are obligated to follow the law or face the consequences, until the law is changed or you change your mind.
“What I don’t get is why we just have to accept laws that we don’t like because they are already on the books.”
What do you mean by ‘we don’t like’?
If a majority of elected representatives doesn’t like a certain law that is on the books, that majority can change the law.
If, however, by ‘we don’t like’ you mean a small number of people, then you are obligated to follow the law or face the consequences, until the law is changed or you change your mind.
I want to talk about politics and instead get a vocabulary lesson. This gets hold. By “we” I mean the people who have been talking on this blog who have expressed concern.
I want to talk about politics and instead get a vocabulary lesson. This gets hold. By “we” I mean the people who have been talking on this blog who have expressed concern.
I want to talk about politics and instead get a vocabulary lesson. This gets hold. By “we” I mean the people who have been talking on this blog who have expressed concern.
I want to talk about politics and instead get a vocabulary lesson. This gets hold. By “we” I mean the people who have been talking on this blog who have expressed concern.
The County curfew is not a problem or an issue, as long as the DPD does not enforce in within Davis city limits, which the staff report says it won’t. If Davis wants a curfew, then Davis should discuss it and pass their own ordinance.
All it really does is give law enforcement the “probable cause” that it needs to stop a teenager when there is no reason to do so. I guess this is what the Sheriff needs.
The County curfew is not a problem or an issue, as long as the DPD does not enforce in within Davis city limits, which the staff report says it won’t. If Davis wants a curfew, then Davis should discuss it and pass their own ordinance.
All it really does is give law enforcement the “probable cause” that it needs to stop a teenager when there is no reason to do so. I guess this is what the Sheriff needs.
The County curfew is not a problem or an issue, as long as the DPD does not enforce in within Davis city limits, which the staff report says it won’t. If Davis wants a curfew, then Davis should discuss it and pass their own ordinance.
All it really does is give law enforcement the “probable cause” that it needs to stop a teenager when there is no reason to do so. I guess this is what the Sheriff needs.
The County curfew is not a problem or an issue, as long as the DPD does not enforce in within Davis city limits, which the staff report says it won’t. If Davis wants a curfew, then Davis should discuss it and pass their own ordinance.
All it really does is give law enforcement the “probable cause” that it needs to stop a teenager when there is no reason to do so. I guess this is what the Sheriff needs.
For those of you who don’t remember – the Harry Potter night was in downtown Davis. Bob Bowen closed off E Street in front of the plaza and set up a huge movie screen. It was open air and not a “controlled” environment. The people at Soga’s brought their drinks outside so they could watch the movie. People were coming and going. Teenagers were milling around in packs, continuously talking and never still for very long. The evening was perfect even down to the owl that swooped over the crowd at one point. The evening ended at midnight when the book was released.
This kind of event would be prohibited for unaccompanied minors if there was a Woodland-like curfew ordinance. It would have to be held in a secure location, with security or adult monitors, sign in sheets, etc. – Every thing that is a huge turn off for older teens.
The last book is being released this year. The event is being organized now, so look for it and be sure to be there.
For those of you who don’t remember – the Harry Potter night was in downtown Davis. Bob Bowen closed off E Street in front of the plaza and set up a huge movie screen. It was open air and not a “controlled” environment. The people at Soga’s brought their drinks outside so they could watch the movie. People were coming and going. Teenagers were milling around in packs, continuously talking and never still for very long. The evening was perfect even down to the owl that swooped over the crowd at one point. The evening ended at midnight when the book was released.
This kind of event would be prohibited for unaccompanied minors if there was a Woodland-like curfew ordinance. It would have to be held in a secure location, with security or adult monitors, sign in sheets, etc. – Every thing that is a huge turn off for older teens.
The last book is being released this year. The event is being organized now, so look for it and be sure to be there.
For those of you who don’t remember – the Harry Potter night was in downtown Davis. Bob Bowen closed off E Street in front of the plaza and set up a huge movie screen. It was open air and not a “controlled” environment. The people at Soga’s brought their drinks outside so they could watch the movie. People were coming and going. Teenagers were milling around in packs, continuously talking and never still for very long. The evening was perfect even down to the owl that swooped over the crowd at one point. The evening ended at midnight when the book was released.
This kind of event would be prohibited for unaccompanied minors if there was a Woodland-like curfew ordinance. It would have to be held in a secure location, with security or adult monitors, sign in sheets, etc. – Every thing that is a huge turn off for older teens.
The last book is being released this year. The event is being organized now, so look for it and be sure to be there.
For those of you who don’t remember – the Harry Potter night was in downtown Davis. Bob Bowen closed off E Street in front of the plaza and set up a huge movie screen. It was open air and not a “controlled” environment. The people at Soga’s brought their drinks outside so they could watch the movie. People were coming and going. Teenagers were milling around in packs, continuously talking and never still for very long. The evening was perfect even down to the owl that swooped over the crowd at one point. The evening ended at midnight when the book was released.
This kind of event would be prohibited for unaccompanied minors if there was a Woodland-like curfew ordinance. It would have to be held in a secure location, with security or adult monitors, sign in sheets, etc. – Every thing that is a huge turn off for older teens.
The last book is being released this year. The event is being organized now, so look for it and be sure to be there.
I thought the Harry Potter night was at Borders. I used to work at one and we had a midnight release. It was a lot of kids with their parents and that’s what I meant by a controlled environment – indoors, safe with adults. A movie night sponsored by the city I would hope encourage a family atmosphere. Do things with your family. I brought some of the kids I babysit for to one of those and they had their friends but they also had me to watch them and make sure they weren’t kidnapped or hit by a car on the busy street at night. They were middle school age – around 14 and they didn’t have a problem with being out with me and their friends.
I thought the Harry Potter night was at Borders. I used to work at one and we had a midnight release. It was a lot of kids with their parents and that’s what I meant by a controlled environment – indoors, safe with adults. A movie night sponsored by the city I would hope encourage a family atmosphere. Do things with your family. I brought some of the kids I babysit for to one of those and they had their friends but they also had me to watch them and make sure they weren’t kidnapped or hit by a car on the busy street at night. They were middle school age – around 14 and they didn’t have a problem with being out with me and their friends.
I thought the Harry Potter night was at Borders. I used to work at one and we had a midnight release. It was a lot of kids with their parents and that’s what I meant by a controlled environment – indoors, safe with adults. A movie night sponsored by the city I would hope encourage a family atmosphere. Do things with your family. I brought some of the kids I babysit for to one of those and they had their friends but they also had me to watch them and make sure they weren’t kidnapped or hit by a car on the busy street at night. They were middle school age – around 14 and they didn’t have a problem with being out with me and their friends.
I thought the Harry Potter night was at Borders. I used to work at one and we had a midnight release. It was a lot of kids with their parents and that’s what I meant by a controlled environment – indoors, safe with adults. A movie night sponsored by the city I would hope encourage a family atmosphere. Do things with your family. I brought some of the kids I babysit for to one of those and they had their friends but they also had me to watch them and make sure they weren’t kidnapped or hit by a car on the busy street at night. They were middle school age – around 14 and they didn’t have a problem with being out with me and their friends.
There are many legal reasons a kid can be out of the house past this time. If a family wants to have their high school students in at 10:00 pm then that family can enforce it.
Exactly. The idea that the county should be able to tell a parent what time his or her child needs to be home is ridiculous.
Repubs like to complain about the “nanny state” – shouldn’t this be item number one on the anti-nanny state agenda?
There are many legal reasons a kid can be out of the house past this time. If a family wants to have their high school students in at 10:00 pm then that family can enforce it.
Exactly. The idea that the county should be able to tell a parent what time his or her child needs to be home is ridiculous.
Repubs like to complain about the “nanny state” – shouldn’t this be item number one on the anti-nanny state agenda?
There are many legal reasons a kid can be out of the house past this time. If a family wants to have their high school students in at 10:00 pm then that family can enforce it.
Exactly. The idea that the county should be able to tell a parent what time his or her child needs to be home is ridiculous.
Repubs like to complain about the “nanny state” – shouldn’t this be item number one on the anti-nanny state agenda?
There are many legal reasons a kid can be out of the house past this time. If a family wants to have their high school students in at 10:00 pm then that family can enforce it.
Exactly. The idea that the county should be able to tell a parent what time his or her child needs to be home is ridiculous.
Repubs like to complain about the “nanny state” – shouldn’t this be item number one on the anti-nanny state agenda?
These types of ordinances are never directed at children with a good reason to be out. Remember, it is spirit of the law that is enforced in California.
The only children or parents that need to fear these types of laws are those with children out committing crimes.
These types of ordinances are never directed at children with a good reason to be out. Remember, it is spirit of the law that is enforced in California.
The only children or parents that need to fear these types of laws are those with children out committing crimes.
These types of ordinances are never directed at children with a good reason to be out. Remember, it is spirit of the law that is enforced in California.
The only children or parents that need to fear these types of laws are those with children out committing crimes.
These types of ordinances are never directed at children with a good reason to be out. Remember, it is spirit of the law that is enforced in California.
The only children or parents that need to fear these types of laws are those with children out committing crimes.
In a way you are correct. But in another way, it becomes a tool to harass minority kids rather than white kids. And I hate to bring that into it, but those are the kids that get harassed by the cops when they are hanging around late into the night
In a way you are correct. But in another way, it becomes a tool to harass minority kids rather than white kids. And I hate to bring that into it, but those are the kids that get harassed by the cops when they are hanging around late into the night
In a way you are correct. But in another way, it becomes a tool to harass minority kids rather than white kids. And I hate to bring that into it, but those are the kids that get harassed by the cops when they are hanging around late into the night
In a way you are correct. But in another way, it becomes a tool to harass minority kids rather than white kids. And I hate to bring that into it, but those are the kids that get harassed by the cops when they are hanging around late into the night