Conservatives Parents Stop Daytime Curfew, Why?
- Eric Hogue
- 2005 24 Jul
I'm dumbfounded on this issue in Roseville...
Roseville has placed their "Daytime Curfew" on hold, as numerous parents complained that such a cit ordinance would be a violation of their children's Constitutional Rights.
The curfew that was passed last month, affords the Roseville Police Department to approach any 'minor' in public, during regular school hours, and ask them to 'prove' that they permission, they are not in violation, or that they are home schooled, or attend a private school system in the city. If not, they were to be fined $25 for the first violation, $50 for the second, and $100 for the third.
I'm sure if they desired to contest the 'ticket', they could appear in court with evidence to remove the fine, and the violation from the records.
Numerous 'conservative' members protested this ordinance on grounds that it violates the student's Constitutional Rights, here is the article today in the Sacramento Bee. What follows are some quotes from the report:
Several parents and students spoke against the daytime curfew at Wednesday's meeting. Among the speakers was Karen England, program director of the Capital Resource Institute, a statewide pro-family public policy group.
"I was very surprised and kind of shocked that Roseville would be doing this," said England, who ran unsuccessfully last year for the Roseville Joint Union High School District board of trustees.
She argued that the proposed ordinance's vague definition of school hours placed the burden of proof on children.
"My daughter's soccer team has four different private schools plus several public schools with totally different schedules," England said. "Do you know what hours my minor is in school?...Are you going to cite her just because you couldn't get a hold of me?"
Another mother stated:
"I had to explain to them that we may no longer have the freedom to go to a grocery store at 2 p.m., because it's going to be assumed we're guilty," she said. "As a citizen of this country, I urge you not to pass this." Boyum said there are numerous studies that show curfews do not curb juvenile crime.
"We don't have a stack of reports that say daytime curfews help," she said. "If we don't have proof, why risk our constitutional rights? ... I want my children to enjoy the freedoms that lots of people have fought for and died for over the years."
How many mature Constitutional Rights do "minors" have? Do they have the same number as adults - those over the age of 18, or better yet, the age of 21?
Do they have the right to engage in a sexual relationship with an adult? Don't we have a law called statutory rape for such a crime?
As conservative parents, do we desire our children to have full mature rights, as minors; for such liberties as condoms, or IUD's on campus? Do we desire them to have the right to an abortion without parental consent, or respectful communication and information?
Do 'minors' have a right to privacy? (What about their bedroom?)
What about the Internet; are we now seeing conservative parents endorsing 'minors' right for total privacy when they are on the public library computers, and the public school computers?
How much of a 'right of truancy do 'minors' have in this country?
If we have a law that states that 'minors' are to be in school, during school hours - why is it wrong for them to be approached by a policeman, and asked about their business at the mall at 1PM in the afternoon?
Are we teaching them that they shouldn't speak, or answer the questions of a policeman, or police woman? Is this a conservative value, to teach our children to 'fear' law enforcement?
On the argument that this would place the burden of proof upon the 'minor', isn't that the point? If a policeman sees a very young driver behind the wheel of a car, should the policeman have the ability to pull that car over and ask the age of the driver? Don't we do that everyday in public when it refers to beer, movie ratings and tobacco purchases?
When the parents say, "well, there is no proof that these daytime curfews curb behavior, or prevent juvenile crimes." I respond with common sense...with all of the "immediate" violence, drug and sexual related abductions, not to mention the 'peer pressure' manipulation...why is it wrong for parents - and kids - to have more eyes on the streets, taking a second, and third look at 13 year-old Sally at the mall?
What are we afraid of folks? Is it really the kid's rights that we are debating here? Maybe we should go back to treating our children as - well, children. Maybe we should be their parents, versus their friends. It might be good for them to respect those who are in law enforcement, and to face a little 'fear' of questioning from time-to-time.
Sure is a lot better than ignoring the growth of truancy because our little 'rock stars' might have to be treated like American 'minor' citizens, who are still accountable to their parents - if not, then they are still 'minors' in our society, accountable to law enforcement.