NationStates Jolt Archive

And before anyone says it...a MINER mines. A minor has not reached the age of majority.

A community near mine is proposing a curfew for minors that would extend from 9pm to 6am the next morning.

This spawned the question:
To what extent should we limit the rights of minors?

What rights should minors have, and what rights should they be denied? And why?

Are there no minors on this board that have an opinion about what they should and should not be allowed to do?

I am 100% against curfews for minors. Why do they need a curfew? What makes them any more dangerous than the rest of society?

It's not the Government's job to play parent.

.. Why do they need a curfew? What makes them any more dangerous than the rest of society?did you ever have to deal with a horny teen?

they are fucking out of controll :D

I am 100% against curfews for minors. Why do they need a curfew? What makes them any more dangerous than the rest of society?
The justification being given is that too many 11-12 year olds are wandering the streets all night, getting into trouble or getting hurt. As Kanabia says, it is the government (in this case, municipal) playing parent in cases where the parents are unable, or unwilling to do so.

So.

If these children are at risk, or causing problems at these times, and the parents are unwilling to intervene, how should they be dealth with?

did you ever have to deal with horny teen?

they are fucking out of controll :D
So am I around this time every month.

The justification being given is that too many 11-12 year olds are wandering the streets all night, getting into trouble or getting hurt. As Kanabia says, it is the government (in this case, municipal) playing parent in cases where the parents are unable, or unwilling to do so.

So.

If these children are at risk, or causing problems at these times, and the parents are unwilling to intervene, how should they be dealth with?
If theyre breaking the law arrest them. Until then let them go about being kids. I mean...say its the summer, its light and warm-ish until about 11, but the kids cant go outside - wheres the sense in that?

So am I around this time every month.


Eeek. I'm staying out of this thread.

Hmm, that's a tough one. What about those, like me, who graduated when they were 17? We start our life apart from our parents, and yet, we can't leave our apartments after 9? Seems ridiculous, but at the same time... I guess it depends on what the teens are like where you live. I grew up in a sleepy town where nothing was open past 9, but most places were closed by 6.

If theyre breaking the law arrest them. Until then let them go about being kids. I mean...say its the summer, its light and warm-ish until about 11, but the kids cant go outside - wheres the sense in that?
The police are complaining that they don't have the manpower to monitor these youths. Community members worry that without supervision, these kids are going to get into trouble where they hurt someone else or themselves.

The issue here is about responsibility. Who is responsible for a minor? Are they responsible for themselves? Are their parents? Society? Who? We limit their rights because we clearly do not believe that humans under a certain age are capable of taking responsibility for their actions. When does this responsibility suddenly kick in? Why have we chosen the ages we have? Is it valid that minors are not charged or punished as are adults for similar crimes? Is it valid that parents have the ultimate say over children in situations where those children have not been removed by the state?

All questions I wish to discuss:)

Eeek. I'm staying out of this thread.
My point was...hormones wreak havoc with our emotions, minor or not. Hormonal fluctuation is not a good enough reason to draw a disctinction between those that have certain rights, and those who don't.

If these children are at risk, or causing problems at these times, and the parents are unwilling to intervene, how should they be dealth with?

That depends on the problem. If they're vandalising property, have a police car cruising around to fix them up if caught in the act. If it's a small community, news will spread pretty quickly if their friends have to go to court.

But really, the best way to stop it is at home. I don't see why a curfew is really necessary. It could also have odd consequences, maybe some teenagers attend after-school sports or classes and have to find their own way home (I did karate during my younger teenage years, and that finished at 9pm one night a week. If a curfew such as this was in place, I wouldn't have been allowed to attend it despite it being a short walk home.) and what about paperboys who have to start early, etc?

Hmm, that's a tough one. What about those, like me, who graduated when they were 17? We start our life apart from our parents, and yet, we can't leave our apartments after 9? Seems ridiculous, but at the same time... I guess it depends on what the teens are like where you live. I grew up in a sleepy town where nothing was open past 9, but most places were closed by 6.
Exactly...you are living by yourself at 17, but you can't vote, drink legally or be considered an adult.

This community discussing the curfew is quite small. Nothing would be open at those times. The kids in question hang out in yards, wander the streets or whatever.

I'm against the curfew, by the way.

Hmm, that's a tough one. What about those, like me, who graduated when they were 17? We start our life apart from our parents, and yet, we can't leave our apartments after 9? Seems ridiculous, but at the same time... I guess it depends on what the teens are like where you live. I grew up in a sleepy town where nothing was open past 9, but most places were closed by 6.

That's a point too. I started university when I was 17, and stayed back several nights to finish assignments. Wouldn't be allowed to under a curfew system...

That depends on the problem. If they're vandalising property, have a police car cruising around to fix them up if caught in the act. If it's a small community, news will spread pretty quickly if their friends have to go to court.

But really, the best way to stop it is at home. I don't see why a curfew is really necessary. It could also have odd consequences, maybe some teenagers attend after-school sports or classes and have to find their own way home (I did karate during my younger teenage years, and that finished at 9pm one night a week. If a curfew such as this was in place, I wouldn't have been allowed to attend it despite it being a short walk home.) and what about paperboys who have to start early, etc?
All good points. To me, this law would be giving parents a pass on being aware of what their children are up to. Interestingly enough, however, was that one person suggested imposing a fine on the parents if their child was caught out after the curfew.

I think curfews are draconian. I hate the idea.

9 pm is kinda early especially with summer coming up. i would be fully in favor of anyone under 17 (or maybe 16) having to be off the streets between midnight and 5 am. ya ya there would be exceptions

the kids arent dangerous, the streets are dangerous for kids.

Exactly...you are living by yourself at 17, but you can't vote, drink legally or be considered an adult.

This community discussing the curfew is quite small. Nothing would be open at those times. The kids in question hang out in yards, wander the streets or whatever.

I'm against the curfew, by the way.
Right, so, it's not like you're talking about L.A., where you might have to worry about gang action, theft, prostitution, and other misdemeanors. Therefore, I'd have to be against it in this case. Sounds like the cops have too little to do.

My point was...hormones wreak havoc with our emotions, minor or not. Hormonal fluctuation is not a good enough reason to draw a disctinction between those that have certain rights, and those who don't.

My point was...I was making a slightly pathetic joke :)

The police are complaining that they don't have the manpower to monitor these youths. Community members worry that without supervision, these kids are going to get into trouble where they hurt someone else or themselves.

The issue here is about responsibility. Who is responsible for a minor? Are they responsible for themselves? Are their parents? Society? Who? We limit their rights because we clearly do not believe that humans under a certain age are capable of taking responsibility for their actions. When does this responsibility suddenly kick in? Why have we chosen the ages we have? Is it valid that minors are not charged or punished as are adults for similar crimes? Is it valid that parents have the ultimate say over children in situations where those children have not been removed by the state?

All questions I wish to discuss:)

And good questions, Sinuhue.

The fairly recent phenomenon of extended adolescence makes this issue even thornier than it was half a century (or more) ago. The one side argues that adolescents are decidedly experimental and largely unaware of the consequences of their actions. This explains things like vandalism, graffiti, theft and the like. The problem is that you cannot simply say that ALL people below 18 are thus impaired -- nor can you generalize that all people OVER 18 are suddenly aware of the need for consideration of those who must clean up after them or who suffer the loss of whatever they think is fun to steal.

So the age (18) is indeed arbitrary, but in the eyes of the adults making the laws, a line had to be drawn SOMEwhere. The variables of parenting, home situation, peer pressure and socioeconomic pressures are far too unpredictable to ever be addressed by such a black-and-white line. But laws are tools that only come in black or white -- you are legal or you're not. Laws crafted in a plurality of any kind will always fall short of a complete and fair reckoning of societal control -- moreso with regard to adolescents.

So what's the solution? Certainly something needs to be done, but legislating common sense, morality, ethics or conscience is unrealistic (if not impossible), especially when dealing with a segment of the population whose more inconsiderate elements seem to thrive on spite (and being told "no"). I wish I had a magic bullet theory that would help further this debate, but the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is a law that holds parents directly responsible for what these kids who are bent on being miscreants do. the colossal folly with that idea is that there's a portion of kids whose paucity of consideration is so great that even a decent parent hasn't a chance of slowing them down. Boot camps and other military-style indoctrination punishments have been suggested, but isn't that just government-as-parent again? Incarceration is certainly the deterrent of choice at present, but as we all know, it only works if you're afraid to go to jail (or in more extreme cases, afraid to die) -- while that deters many, it certainly doesn't get them all, and the thrill of illegality motivates those that the fear of prison doesn't quell.

Trust me, as a high school teacher, I've given this a LOT of thought. And while I am no great mind, I've yet to come up with the panacea here. It is no wonder that curfews are popular -- I am certian that lawmakers, parents and police go through a similar thought process (yes, cops think) and have come to a similar conclusion. Since they can't stop adolescent rebellion completely, they take the approach that stops the most lawlessness for the least amount of expenditure (money, time, etc.). And that's a curfew.

Unfortunately, that means that those under 18 who have legitimate reasons to be out after Xpm are either screwed or are forced to undergo some sort of permit process (further alienating them and making them feel like they're already believed to be potential criminals who need to have documentation of their legality). Furthermore, those who weren't bounded by conscience or parental dicta won't be affected anyway. In fact, they'll just learn more effective methods of going underground -- and the result of learning such behavior is questionable at least.

Sorry I couldn't offer a real solution, but I hope I've stirred up some other people's ideas. Let's hear what you think.

Magister Jubal

I oppose the curfew, but it sounds like this town has a problem and since the parents can't take care of these kids, the local government has to step in and put the boot down hard.

If I had to, I would put a midnight curfew, but I don't know the full details of this town.

The justification being given is that too many 11-12 year olds are wandering the streets all night, getting into trouble or getting hurt. As Kanabia says, it is the government (in this case, municipal) playing parent in cases where the parents are unable, or unwilling to do so.

So.

If these children are at risk, or causing problems at these times, and the parents are unwilling to intervene, how should they be dealth with?
Rather then direct parenting we should just hold parents more liable such as “if your kids out past 10 pm … he gets hurt or does something illegal you are responsible”
I understand that there are times where a parent cant be with the child all the time but he or should (if a decent parent) have an idea where their kids are or are going to and what they are up to. My parents did no problem.


Basically saying no curfew per-say but if your underage kid is out at an unreasonable time you take increased responsibility for not being a good parent

Onn one hand, I believe parents need to take more responsibility for their kids and not ask the government to do it. Also, it's too difficult to enforce, and what do police do if they catch a kid out past curfew? Do they just send him home? That's hardly a deterrent, and if parents don't give a damn, it accomplishes nothing. Ticket the kid? OK, maybe that might hurt, but if parents pay it or if kids duck it, again it accomplishes nothing. Take the kid to jail? Oh, the parents are going to love that. The only thing parents these days are more opposed to than parenting their kids is letting other people do it. Shoot them? What are we, a police state? Wait, bad example...

On the other hand, I don't like kids. Teenagers are OK, but I don't want to see a bunch of kids out on the streets late. Frankly, if I were their parents I wouldn't let them out of the house except to go to school, but I don't think I will be one of those "buddy" parents anyway. So yeah, I think curfews are dumb unless imposed by parents themselves. Next thing we know, the U.S. Congress is going to pass a curfew law for kids. We don't need that.

Reminds me of the Simpson’s where the seniors got a curfew placed on anyone under 60 :P

What about things like.....age of consent for minors? Any thoughts of what restrictions should be, or if there should be restrictions?

This community discussing the curfew is quite small. Nothing would be open at those times. The kids in question hang out in yards, wander the streets or whatever.

This wouldn't be in Cobourg by chance, would it? If it is...while I am against curfews of any sort except in a state of emergency, I can see why they would be doing it (even though it's unfair to the law-abiding youth).

This wouldn't be in Cobourg by chance, would it? If it is...while I am against curfews of any sort except in a state of emergency, I can see why they would be doing it (even though it's unfair to the law-abiding youth).
Never heard of it. What is going on there that would justify a curfew?

That depends on the problem. If they're vandalising property, have a police car cruising around to fix them up if caught in the act. If it's a small community, news will spread pretty quickly if their friends have to go to court.

But really, the best way to stop it is at home. I don't see why a curfew is really necessary. It could also have odd consequences, maybe some teenagers attend after-school sports or classes and have to find their own way home (I did karate during my younger teenage years, and that finished at 9pm one night a week. If a curfew such as this was in place, I wouldn't have been allowed to attend it despite it being a short walk home.) and what about paperboys who have to start early, etc?

I think most curfews have exceptions for things like that. There was a curfew in my town when I was younger (it started at like 11 though). If you were out because of work, school activities, church, etc. - no problem.

Never heard of it. What is going on there that would justify a curfew?
It's a small community just 100K east of Toronto. There was a huge fire at a local factory that was a manufacturing of plastic goods and material. The two that they caught, who are being charged with arson are children, ages 12 and 16...

Curfews? Bad idea. The negatives outweigh the positives. I think that all the laws against minors doing this or that have to be in place, because of the "bad" kids. I should be able to make at least some desicions regarding my life. I can not even legally worship the way I wish until I'm 18. And that's just wrong.

im against curfews in general.

im also against the arbitrary assignment of responsibility based on age. it kinda bugs me that kids are supposed to pay taxes when they work, can join the military, are tried as adults, yet cannot drink, gamble, buy porn, be out after a certain time, etc, etc. kinda like they are only adults when we want to punish them...

also, i figure if they are actually doing something wrong, then, they should be arrested for that. im also generally against knee-jerk/reaction/prevention type laws.

pretty much everything that one individual does to another that is bad, is already illegal, but we love making up new laws to make it 'more illegal' and such. its all silliness, and its getting to the point where you end up breaking 5 different laws without realizing it just going for a walk.

bah, enough ranting for now. just we should have a simpler legal code....

And before anyone says it...a MINER mines. A minor has not reached the age of majority.

A community near mine is proposing a curfew for minors that would extend from 9pm to 6am the next morning.

This spawned the question:
To what extent should we limit the rights of minors?

What rights should minors have, and what rights should they be denied? And why?As long as the Parents are held responsible for the actions of their Child/Minor... it's up to the Parents/Guardians to define what rights they have.

The fact that the Government has to impose such measures.... :(

I don't like the idea of a curfew for teens 13 and over. They are old enough to make decisons for themselves and know right from wrong.

For kids 12 and under though I think a curfew is fair enough. No kid that age should be running the streets late at night without adult supervision. The parents should also be held responsible for the actions of their child if they allow him/her to run the streets. Its not just because of what the child can get up to either. What if a sicko finds young kids out alone late at night and decides to grab one or two.

Being a minor several years ago...You don't know shiat about the world and nothing will change that. Stop acting like you are experienced adults. You all are dumb.

Being a minor several years ago...You don't know shiat about the world and nothing will change that. Stop acting like you are experienced adults. You all are dumb.

Generalizing a bit there.

I am an experienced adult aged 41 and stand by what I said.

A lot of teens I know are perfectly able to look after themselves and are smart enough to stay out of trouble at night. The majority of them shouldn't be punished for what a small minority may or may not do.

It's not the Government's job to play parent.

If parents would be parents then the Government wouldn't have to.

If theyre breaking the law arrest them. Until then let them go about being kids. I mean...say its the summer, its light and warm-ish until about 11, but the kids cant go outside - wheres the sense in that?

Personally, I think the parent should also be arrested, particularly in the course of the investigation of why the kid is out after curfew, or has gotten into trouble by breaking some law, that the parent had no idea where the kid was.

AS a minor, I think curfews are silly. They cause far more problems than they solve. They divert police from chasing the real criminals and make them run around dragging kids to their houses. That isn't what we should be making them do.

I don't like the idea of a curfew for teens 13 and over. They are old enough to make decisons for themselves and know right from wrong.

For kids 12 and under though I think a curfew is fair enough. No kid that age should be running the streets late at night without adult supervision. The parents should also be held responsible for the actions of their child if they allow him/her to run the streets. Its not just because of what the child can get up to either. What if a sicko finds young kids out alone late at night and decides to grab one or two.

I totally disagree with your idea that kids 13 and over are old enough to make decisions for themselves. They may know right from wrong but they certainly aren't mature enough to keep from being influenced by their peers.
Hell, there are adults(21 and over) that don't act mature enough to keep themselves on the right side of the law.

An example a couple of teenage boneheads, (16 &17), decided they could drive around in their Pickup and play ice cream truck music, and when little kids came running out they'd drive away, they thought it was hilarious...The thing is, since they weren't in an ice cream truck a bunch of parents, in that neighborhood, thought they were trying to abduct a little kid...they didn't see the humor in those teenagers actions...

Doesn't sound like "they are old enough to make decisons for themselves and know right from wrong" doesn't it?

"To what extent shouold we limit minors?"


Limit them where they are able to get away with shit cause they are minors. Not talking about the avg teenage steaing.. but murder etc..

Being a minor several years ago...You don't know shiat about the world and nothing will change that. Stop acting like you are experienced adults. You all are dumb.
that could've been phrased better.

AS a minor, I think curfews are silly. They cause far more problems than they solve. They divert police from chasing the real criminals and make them run around dragging kids to their houses. That isn't what we should be making them do.Break the law and you are a real Criminal. wether it be speeding, breaking curfew or killing someone, you are a real criminal.

What rights should minors have, and what rights should they be denied? And why? When I saw the title and the author I was expecting a thread on teenage sex ;) :p

But seriously now...


Curfews are not on. They are a crappy solution to a problem, and are an extremely lazy and unjust way of dealing with young criminals.

Legal ages are interesting. Some people are more responsible with alcohol/sex/driving at 14 than others are at 20.

I'd propose a more thought out legal age structure (In NZ at 17 you can own a gun, drive a car, have sex and get married but not have a beer with dinner...) and work out a system where you can get exemptions.

Dunno how practical it would be, but if you could prove you were reponsible enough to drive/get married/drink/whatever before the standard legal age you could be exempted. What do you think?

If parents would be parents then the Government wouldn't have to.Chicken and the egg.

I think if the government didn't keep taking over parents rights and responsibilities, they would be more responsible.

I totally disagree with your idea that kids 13 and over are old enough to make decisions for themselves. They may know right from wrong but they certainly aren't mature enough to keep from being influenced by their peers.
Hell, there are adults(21 and over) that don't act mature enough to keep themselves on the right side of the law.

An example a couple of teenage boneheads, (16 &17), decided they could drive around in their Pickup and play ice cream truck music, and when little kids came running out they'd drive away, they thought it was hilarious...The thing is, since they weren't in an ice cream truck a bunch of parents, in that neighborhood, thought they were trying to abduct a little kid...they didn't see the humor in those teenagers actions...

Doesn't sound like "they are old enough to make decisons for themselves and know right from wrong" doesn't it?

You have a point. I should have said most teens.

Just because a some teens are dickheads doesn't mean they all are. I don't believe in punishing a whole age group because a few of them are idiots. The vast majority of teens are the ones we never hear about because they don't go around getting into or causing trouble.

Every age group has morons like the ones you mentioned above. Being braindead isn't limited to the teenage years :).

Chicken and the egg.

I think if the government didn't keep taking over parents rights and responsibilities, they would be more responsible.

You're right which comes first?

If the minority of parents who have teenagers and some younger children would have done what it takes to make sure their children were brought up to respect the law, their neighbors, and their neighbor's property then the government would not have had to create laws to replace the parent's control over their child. A visious cycle then is created. I would suspect also that the parents are not respecting the law either and that ideal is passed down to their children.

You have a point. I should have said most teens.

Just because a some teens are dickheads doesn't mean they all are. I don't believe in punishing a whole age group because a few of them are idiots. The vast majority of teens are the ones we never hear about because they don't go around getting into or causing trouble.

Every age group has morons like the ones you mentioned above. Being braindead isn't limited to the teenage years :).

This I know I work for a museum that uses community service workers, individuals who are in trouble in some way or another. We also have a core group of volunteers(20-30) who are currently averaging in age of 17, who are excited about helping out around the facility.

Why is it that the government feels the need to put limitations on people who have no representation. Minors are not allowed to vote, minors legally dont really count for the Bill of Rights or any of those things. Anything a minor owns can legally be searched without warrant or probable cause. For example, a 16 year old's purse was searched last year at her school. She was arrested for possession, but if she had been 2 years older, she could sue for searching her property. We can't even own anything! We are like slaves with some protective laws. We can't sign a legal document without parental permission first. Yes, we need more control of our lives. How can we learn to live in this world if we are told to look but dont touch, and then at 18 be strewn into the Real World. Their is no way.

When I was a teenager there was a curfew put into effect of 11-5 Su-Th and 12-5 F-Sa for 16 and under (at seventeen in my state you were no longer considered a minor). I totally agree with why they did it. We were a poor neighborhood and many of the parents worked nights. There would be huge groups of kids wandering around the neighborhood at all hours. Some of these kids were well-behaved and some of them weren't but try figuring out which is which. Even the relatively well-behaved kids were making quite a bit of noise and getting in the way of cars, etc. Unfortunately for the more well-behaved minors, we as a society have a pretty strict expectation of children 16 and under being supervised most of the time especially when they are in large groups. Imagine the outrage if all of the teachers left the students of a school unsupervised, in the middle of the day, for even a short period. Why then is it acceptable for groups of children to wander the streets in the middle of the night?

As far as taking time away from 'real' criminals, much of the time of police in my town was wasted on responding to reports of vandalism or disturbing the peace before the curfew. While there was the occasional violator (I was one) to be chased down, after the curfew went into effect the police were able to deal with the 'real' crime like the high incidence of rape in my area or the gun violence. Is it a perfect, or even perfectly fair, solution? Nope. However, it's not an unreasonable solution.

Why is it that the government feels the need to put limitations on people who have no representation. Minors are not allowed to vote, minors legally dont really count for the Bill of Rights or any of those things. Anything a minor owns can legally be searched without warrant or probable cause. For example, a 16 year old's purse was searched last year at her school. She was arrested for possession, but if she had been 2 years older, she could sue for searching her property. We can't even own anything! We are like slaves with some protective laws. We can't sign a legal document without parental permission first. Yes, we need more control of our lives. How can we learn to live in this world if we are told to look but dont touch, and then at 18 be strewn into the Real World. Their is no way.

Um, actually, if she were two years older and in a courthouse or airport, it would still be legal. When you enter certain places you give up your right to be protected from illegal search and seizure. Or moreso, search and seizure is no longer illegal. The supervisors at the school allowed for her property to be searched as per the agreement that is entered into by the child or their guardians when they enter SCHOOL property.

Personally, I think the parent should also be arrested, particularly in the course of the investigation of why the kid is out after curfew, or has gotten into trouble by breaking some law, that the parent had no idea where the kid was.
Then again, as a parent, I realise that we can give our kids an education, we can teach them right from wrong, we can be honest and open with them, but we are NOT the only influence in their lives, and at some point, they are going to mess up. Children are not little extensions of their parents...they have their own personalities, and their own thoughts. Blaming the parents ALONE for the actions of their children gives kids very little credit. They become individuals from the second of their birth, and you can influence them to a certain extent...but in the end, they are THEY and not YOU.

I totally disagree with your idea that kids 13 and over are old enough to make decisions for themselves. They may know right from wrong but they certainly aren't mature enough to keep from being influenced by their peers.
Hell, there are adults(21 and over) that don't act mature enough to keep themselves on the right side of the law.

Who commits the majority of crime? The stats are a bit hard to define, because a lot of crime committed by minors isn't factored in, but I think most of us could agree that it is the adults committing most of the crime out there. Yet we are supposed to know right from wrong...clearly knowing that doesn't stop people from doing wrong things.

Point being, minors are no less capable of making mistakes, no less prone to those mistakes overall, and they are certainly NOT mindless little things who can't make decisions for themselves. They can, and do, all the time. Parents and adults can not follow them around and tell them what to do... When we disempower them, and make them feel incapable, we do them harm. We devalue the value judgements they make EVERY SINGLE DAY. Our kids are up against incredible pressures...pressures we can hardly remember, much less understand right now. And yet somehow, kids every day make decisions based on their values, choose right over wrong, and go on with their lives. We jump on the cases where mistakes are made, but we forget that for the most part, kids are doing a damn good job of deciding for themselves.

When I saw the title and the author I was expecting a thread on teenage sex ;) :p
Yeah, I've been talking about sex a lot:) But I'm not ALL about it!

Why is it that the government feels the need to put limitations on people who have no representation. Minors are not allowed to vote, minors legally dont really count for the Bill of Rights or any of those things. Anything a minor owns can legally be searched without warrant or probable cause. For example, a 16 year old's purse was searched last year at her school. She was arrested for possession, but if she had been 2 years older, she could sue for searching her property. We can't even own anything! We are like slaves with some protective laws. We can't sign a legal document without parental permission first. Yes, we need more control of our lives. How can we learn to live in this world if we are told to look but dont touch, and then at 18 be strewn into the Real World. Their is no way.
I agree with you. Children have no voice, but through adults. Even the mentally handicapped are allowed to advocate for themselves, but children can not. We want to protect our kids, yet we deny them a voice, deny them inclusion until some arbitrary age...when you hear about street kids, or kids who have been exploited or abused, kids who have committed crime, or damn it, kids who have just been good kids we NEVER hear them telling us about it...someone is always speaking for them. As an aboriginal, I feel very strongly that though the intentions are good, the fact that ANY group should be 'spoken for' is ridiculous. Kids may not be able to tell us things with the level of sophisitication we want, but they have a pretty good line from a VERY early age as to how they feel, what they want, and how the world around them affects them.

Specifically in regards to a curfew:

I think the kids in the community should be consulted. If they also think it is a problem (which in this case, I know they do), they might have some good suggestions for dealing with the few bad apples. I think adults need to know what they are facing out there as well (bullying, drug use, in some cases, child prostitution). I suspect that the community doesn't really want to KNOW what's going on. Well, time to get uncomfortable, because if you give a kid a chance to talk, and don't limit them, you're going to get an ear-full of stuff you might not want to hear. I suspect that in this specific case, not only would the majority of kids SUPPORT the curfew, but they would also have some very good ideas about what other sorts of activities the community needs to act on.

Specifically in regards to a curfew:

I think the kids in the community should be consulted. If they also think it is a problem (which in this case, I know they do), they might have some good suggestions for dealing with the few bad apples. I think adults need to know what they are facing out there as well (bullying, drug use, in some cases, child prostitution). I suspect that the community doesn't really want to KNOW what's going on. Well, time to get uncomfortable, because if you give a kid a chance to talk, and don't limit them, you're going to get an ear-full of stuff you might not want to hear. I suspect that in this specific case, not only would the majority of kids SUPPORT the curfew, but they would also have some very good ideas about what other sorts of activities the community needs to act on.
While I agree with most I don’t think you will find wide ranging support from kids for an across the board curfew (St. Cloud has had one sense before I was even in high school so I HAVE been under the curfew before)

Though you may get support for a limited curfew (meaning something along the lines of increased penalties if caught doing something against the law) or with just parental permission (though that could be an issue proving that the kid had permission)

While I agree with most I don’t think you will find wide ranging support from kids for an across the board curfew (St. Cloud has had one sense before I was even in high school so I HAVE been under the curfew before)

Though you may get support for a limited curfew (meaning something along the lines of increased penalties if caught doing something against the law) or with just parental permission (though that could be an issue proving that the kid had permission)
I don't think you could come up with a unanimous decision whether the people involved were minors or not. One hundred percent support is not the point. The kids themselves might have some better ideas than the proposed curfew, or they might want to try that out for a while.

The reason for including them should be obvious, but it isn't. THEY are the ones who will be affected directly. They should know WHY, and they should also be able to give their side of the story. Again, I think the community itself could learn a lot about what is really behind this if they just asked, and really gave the kids leave to speak freely.

Even if the community doesn't leave the decision to the kids themselves, just bringing them into the decision making is an important step.

My community often included the kids and would often times make requests that local student councils attend, etc. I'm not sure though that the kids who show up are necessarily going to be the ones affected the most.

While expounding on the Limits given to Minors, lets also look at the rights they are given also.

Any and All crimes are wiped clear of their record when they turn 18. after that, any crime becomes permenent on said record.

Absolved from all forms of signed contracts. any Contract a Minor signs is not legally binding because they are minors. Up to and including Pre-nuptuals.

Lighter punnishments for 'Adult' crimes.

Harsher penalties for crimes against Children.

Any penalties or debts they incurr is the responsibility of the Parents/Guardians not the minor

For all that protection, isn't asking for curfews a bargin?

My community often included the kids and would often times make requests that local student councils attend, etc. I'm not sure though that the kids who show up are necessarily going to be the ones affected the most.
But in a lot of cases, kids KNOW they really aren't going to have much of a say, so they don't bother. I compare it to voting. Plenty of people realise that their vote is worth squat, so they don't vote.

You let kids know that their input MATTERS in cases where the issue affects them, and they'll participate.

What's the point of curfews if the children are not wanted at home?

Too many children are left to wander the streets because their parents want time without them their.

While expounding on the Limits given to WOMEN, lets also look at the rights they are given also.

Any and All crimes are wiped clear of their record AFTER A CERTAIN TIME.

Absolved from all forms of signed contracts. any Contract a WOMAN signs is not legally binding because they are WOMEN. Up to and including Pre-nuptuals.

Lighter punnishments for 'ALL' crimes.

Harsher penalties for crimes against WOMEN.

Any penalties or debts they incurr is the responsibility of the FATHER/HUSBAND not the WOMAN

For all that protection, isn't asking for curfews a bargin?

I went through and changed all the references to minor, to WOMEN to make a bit of a point. You could also change woman to slave. Not that I'm comparing the issues. The point is, you can say, "We are protecting this group by giving them special rights, and limiting these rights", but the fact is, YOU are making those decisions without their input. At some point, you are deciding that another human being is incapable of making a choice on their own.

Now. I'm not saying children are capable of making complicated legal and ethical choices (thought again, I'm not saying they are INCAPABLE either) and that they should be treated exactly as an adult. I think it's possible to come to a middle ground. We alternately cosset and protect our children...we expose them to graphic violence and sexuality, then we censor them from the same. We teach some kids this, and others that, and we don't really know where to put the blame for their actions, good or bad. But we never, ever let them talk for themselves.

I don't think you could come up with a unanimous decision whether the people involved were minors or not. One hundred percent support is not the point. The kids themselves might have some better ideas than the proposed curfew, or they might want to try that out for a while.

The reason for including them should be obvious, but it isn't. THEY are the ones who will be affected directly. They should know WHY, and they should also be able to give their side of the story. Again, I think the community itself could learn a lot about what is really behind this if they just asked, and really gave the kids leave to speak freely.

Even if the community doesn't leave the decision to the kids themselves, just bringing them into the decision making is an important step.
Oh defiantly not arguing that they should not be included just meaning not sure you will find support

The most important part is to LISTEN to what the kids have to say (I was on the student review board that went over our curfew law back in the day) it was a joke they just did a 10 pm curfew for 16 and under and a 11 curfew for 17 year olds and none for 18+

(adjusted by an hour for weekends) but the board did not listen to the purposed changes (including written parental permission for sporting activities that arrive or terminate after curfew)

The most important part is to LISTEN to what the kids have to say
I agree completely. I would have to add, that you let them speak FREELY as well, and not punish them for anything they have to say.

I agree completely. I would have to add, that you let them speak FREELY as well, and not punish them for anything they have to say.
Yeah we were laughed at a lot and a lot of talking behind our backs it was tough and no one wanted to do it because it was pointless

I know there are quite a few 'minor' NSers...and yet I don't think we've heard from many of them...

Come on minors, quit letting us talk FOR you!

I know there are quite a few 'minor' NSers...and yet I don't think we've heard from many of them...

Come on minors, quit letting us talk FOR you!boys and girls under 21...let your voice be heard...

But in a lot of cases, kids KNOW they really aren't going to have much of a say, so they don't bother. I compare it to voting. Plenty of people realise that their vote is worth squat, so they don't vote.

You let kids know that their input MATTERS in cases where the issue affects them, and they'll participate.

I think there are far more people who don't care to become educated about the process or to go through the effort than there are people who are disenfranchised when you are talking about the youth of America (I'm going to say youth here is 27 and under). I can't prove it and neither can anyone else here, but it is what I suspect to be true.

I think there are far more people who don't care to become educated about the process or to go through the effort than there are people who are disenfranchised when you are talking about the youth of America (I'm going to say youth here is 27 and under). I can't prove it and neither can anyone else here, but it is what I suspect to be true.
Well, it takes some trailblazers too...and so far, there haven't really been that many, or they haven't gotten a lot of attention. I'd like to see more youth leaders blazing those trails; I think it would encourage others.

TG by the way.

boys and girls under 21...let your voice be heard...
or 18, if you live in the UK :p

or 18, if you live in the UK :p
And most of Canada.

Well, it takes some trailblazers too...and so far, there haven't really been that many, or they haven't gotten a lot of attention. I'd like to see more youth leaders blazing those trails; I think it would encourage others.

TG by the way.

Absolutely. We need trailblazers in some many places in our society. I think the best thing we can do is to find our issue and become vocal and active about it. Set the example. Hopefully, it will encourage more young people, elderly people, white people, minorities, homosexuals, heterosexuals, men and women to stand up for what they believe in and be heard.

TG'ed back.

I've gotten old enough to realize my parents really only want what's best for me. So, I guess I can wait to grow up. I'm kinda upset I wasn't old enough to vote in this last presidential election, I almost cared who won... but, then, my vote wouldn't have mattered, as this is a Republican state.

I've gotten old enough to realize my parents really only want what's best for me. So, I guess I can wait to grow up. I'm kinda upset I wasn't old enough to vote in this last presidential election, I almost cared who won... but, then, my vote wouldn't have mattered, as this is a Republican state.
But just because they have good intentions does not mean it is the right decision. Your input (youngins) is key to making some rules that are fair and useful

dp

And most of Canada.
And most of Europe as well probably, come to think of it.

I've gotten old enough to realize my parents really only want what's best for me. So, I guess I can wait to grow up. I'm kinda upset I wasn't old enough to vote in this last presidential election, I almost cared who won... but, then, my vote wouldn't have mattered, as this is a Republican state.
Most parents want what is best for their children...but we don't always know what that is. Talking to our kids is important. I might think (for example) that my children would really benefit MOST from piano lessons...but if they hate the piano, and it is like a punishment to them, and I never KNOW that...is it doing them good? Maybe joinging a soccer team or hip hop dancing would do them better.

or 18, if you live in the UK :pCan you Drink, Vote, and have sex with the partner of your Choice...if not you are a minor.

So am I around this time every month.

well if you're 18+ years old, come on over. hehe

I've gotten old enough to realize my parents really only want what's best for me. So, I guess I can wait to grow up. I'm kinda upset I wasn't old enough to vote in this last presidential election, I almost cared who won... but, then, my vote wouldn't have mattered, as this is a Republican state.

Everybody thought Florida was a republican state in the 2000 election and your vote would most certainly have counted there.

Can you Drink, Vote, and have sex with the partner of your Choice...if not you are a minor.
You can do all three, and you can have sex with the partner of your choice at 16.

Everybody thought Florida was a republican state in the 2000 election and your vote would most certainly have counted there.

hopefully your vote would not have been one with a hanging chad for which the Dems had Florida law overturned so they could be counted after the deadline for turning in the vote count... i trust that you are able to read and follow directions, however, so yours likely would have been counted..

Everybody thought Florida was a republican state in the 2000 election and your vote would most certainly have counted there.
I knew better. Though Florida's geographically Southern, politically, they're just plain bizzare. Alabama, on the other hand, is so Republican it is not even funny. Actually, it kinda is sometimes. ;)

I knew better. Though Florida's geographically Southern, politically, they're just plain bizzare. Alabama, on the other hand, is so Republican it is not even funny. Actually, it kinda is sometimes. ;)

yah, isn't it like this:

the northern part of the state -- say, north of Orlando -- is more or less The South, while Orlando (and points south) is more like California? And Miami is New York Junior. hehe

Most parents want what is best for their children...but we don't always know what that is. Talking to our kids is important. I might think (for example) that my children would really benefit MOST from piano lessons...but if they hate the piano, and it is like a punishment to them, and I never KNOW that...is it doing them good? Maybe joinging a soccer team or hip hop dancing would do them better.
Well, that is something I think kids should learn how to handle early. Parents love to force their hopes and dreams and expectations on kids-they don't even realize it. I think it benefitted me to realize this young. It's an insight to human nature. It's essential.

yah, isn't it like this:

the northern part of the state -- say, north of Orlando -- is more or less The South, while Orlando (and points south) is more like California? And Miami is New York Junior. hehe

Sorry, I didn't mean to start this discussion. I was just making the point that it is ALWAYS worth it to vote. If for nothing else, let whoever you agree with know that they have your support and that if your candidate loses that the candidate who won doesn't have the support of the entire nation.

/hijack

Well, that is something I think kids should learn how to handle early. Parents love to force their hopes and dreams and expectations on kids-they don't even realize it. I think it benefitted me to realize this young. It's an insight to human nature. It's essential.
Yes...but it can be carried too far, and so much of what kids rebel against are these expectations and 'dreams' that are never really explained to them.

Then again, I know that in my case, even when I had nothing to rebel against, I FOUND something ;)

Yes...but it can be carried too far, and so much of what kids rebel against are these expectations and 'dreams' that are never really explained to them.

Then again, I know that in my case, even when I had nothing to rebel against, I FOUND something ;)

We all find something.

TG

...and you can have sex with the partner of your choice at 16.
not where I am...you cant.

maybe in your Country you are no longer a minor...come to the US and you cant .

not where I am...you cant.

maybe in your Country you are no longer a minor...come to the US and you cant .
I think what Nadkor is trying to say is that choosing your sexual partner isn't necessarily legislated along with the other things around the age of majority. Generally there is no "illegal" sex as a minor except that which is exploitative, or abusive. Quite often, limits as to the difference in age come into place, but few (if any) countries in the west say, "Sex under 18 is illegal".

not where I am...you cant.

maybe in your Country you are no longer a minor...come to the US and you cant .
that was the whole point of "or 18, if youre in the UK"

Yes...but it can be carried too far, and so much of what kids rebel against are these expectations and 'dreams' that are never really explained to them.

Then again, I know that in my case, even when I had nothing to rebel against, I FOUND something ;)
Mwa-ha-ha... :fluffle:

midnight makes more sense than nine. But then again, I'm in my early thirties, so what do I know?

You know something? I was raised with so few rules that I'm surprised I don't break every single law. Yet, it's strange, I felt so free. I had no curfew; the only rules I had when I was 16 was just to call and tell my dad where I was and what time I'd be home... When I was 15, I had a few more rules, but nothing strict.

Now, at 22, my rules are: no fires and no Tom Cochrane.

My dad actually talked to me as a kid and treated me as an adult, but I was still punished as a kid. If adults started treating kids more equally, there might be fewer problems. Well... I'm not saying it'd always work...but, if the parents were reasonable, they could show theirkids how to be reasonable.

but, if the parents were reasonable, they could show theirkids how to be reasonable.
Hmmm...the old, do as I do, not as I say approach to parenting? I don't know... :D

My point exactly.

I was raised in the traditional Cree way. Children are not prohibited from certain things...they are told about the dangers or benefits and left to make their own choice. Often, mistakes are punishment enough. Having freedom and acting recklessly are not the same things.

You know something? I was raised with so few rules that I'm surprised I don't break every single law. Yet, it's strange, I felt so free. I had no curfew; the only rules I had when I was 16 was just to call and tell my dad where I was and what time I'd be home... When I was 15, I had a few more rules, but nothing strict.

Now, at 22, my rules are: no fires and no Tom Cochrane.

My dad actually talked to me as a kid and treated me as an adult, but I was still punished as a kid. If adults started treating kids more equally, there might be fewer problems. Well... I'm not saying it'd always work...but, if the parents were reasonable, they could show theirkids how to be reasonable.

I disagree. I don't think adults should treat their kids equally. They aren't equal. I think too many adults expect kids to be just smaller adults. They aren't. Kids need to know that their parents are hearing them and need to be made to understand (as much as is possible) why parents are making the decisions for them that they are. However, in the end, children should not be expected to be as responsible as adults. They should be allowed to live in and enjoy childhood while still being slowly groomed to eventually take on the responsibilties for themselves. I believe this is why it's appropraite to have different age limits for different activities. Driving, then voting, then college, then drinking, then financial independence (objects in the mirror may be closer than they appear). I wouldn't tell my eight-year-old to decide on their own whether or not they can smoke pot. I would let him/her know that if they use it they will be punished and I would let them know why it's inappropriate for an eight-year-old to making that kind of a decision.

I was treated as an equal in that, I am also a human. At 8, I had less of a voice than I did as a teen.

Either way, it's not healthy to give kids no voice and make all the decisions for them. You have to let them at some point, and it can start with the parents giving the child options (at a certain point), and then progressing to when the parent asks the child for suggestions to when the child tells the parent what they want to do and then finally, no parental interference.

I was treated as an equal in that, I am also a human. At 8, I had less of a voice than I did as a teen.

Either way, it's not healthy to give kids no voice and make all the decisions for them. You have to let them at some point, and it can start with the parents giving the child options (at a certain point), and then progressing to when the parent asks the child for suggestions to when the child tells the parent what they want to do and then finally, no parental interference.

I agree with that. I just think a lot of parents mistake treating your child with respect with treating your child like an adult. They are totally different. I can trust you to be home alone, but I certainly wouldn't trust a five-year-old to be home alone. In fact, I could go to jail and/or lose my child for such actions.

I agree with that. I just think a lot of parents mistake treating your child with respect with treating your child like an adult. They are totally different. I can trust you to be home alone, but I certainly wouldn't trust a five-year-old to be home alone. In fact, I could go to jail and/or lose my child for such actions.
Yes. There are no hard and fast borders here between childhood and adulthood. It can't be an either/or proposition of full equality versus total dependence.

Minors should be locked in their rooms and released only for school, worship, or some other parent-attended function until they are 18 years of age.

Yes. There are no hard and fast borders here between childhood and adulthood. It can't be an either/or proposition of full equality versus total dependence.

That is, in fact, exactly what I said. However, as someone pointed out earlier, the borders as far as the law is concerned HAVE to be hard and fast in order to be fair. How are you going to judge when a child would drive without hard and fast borders on that? Leave it up to the parent? Do you know how many parents would let their totally irresponsible child drive just for convenience?

Minors should be locked in their rooms and released only for school, worship, or some other parent-attended function until they are 18 years of age.

You're not serious I hope...I don't know if I was able to express myself on this topic as good as I had I had hoped earlier...

My take on the topic is this: Parents have a responsibility to teach their children right from wrong, what rules are, and what the consequences are if the rules are broken.

Parents should be invoking curfews on their children, not the governemnt, but if parents as a whole, in a community, are unwilling to do this then I feel the government should be able to step in. If as a result, the two sides get together and are able to work something out, that works for everybody, then I can live with that as well. I do not agree that minor children should have a final say on what's decided, but would be willing to hear what they have to say if it is presented properly.

Somebody mentioned that the children most affected by curfews are not likely to attend such a session for input and I agree. Those who care about their community will be there, but those who are already breaking the law or at least haven't been caught at it won't be.

That is, in fact, exactly what I said. However, as someone pointed out earlier, the borders as far as the law is concerned HAVE to be hard and fast in order to be fair. How are you going to judge when a child would drive without hard and fast borders on that? Leave it up to the parent? Do you know how many parents would let their totally irresponsible child drive just for convenience?
I getcha, I getcha...some of the borders we have are necessary. However, I question new ones (such as this curfew rule) that would be set up, without consultation with those most affected.

And I suspect, if you really asked kids, "Do you want to drive" and got some honest answers, most of them would say "No, not yet". It's a scary thing, and it's a big responsibility.

I getcha, I getcha...some of the borders we have are necessary. However, I question new ones (such as this curfew rule) that would be set up, without consultation with those most affected.

And I suspect, if you really asked kids, "Do you want to drive" and got some honest answers, most of them would say "No, not yet". It's a scary thing, and it's a big responsibility.

Ah, but who says they aren't getting input?

Ah, but who says they aren't getting input?
Input into what? Driving laws? Are you suggesting children WERE consulted?

Input into what? Driving laws? Are you suggesting children WERE consulted?

We were talking about curfews.

We were talking about curfews.
I know...that's why I got confused and deleted my last post...but you quoted me on the driving thing, so I thought maybe you were talking about driving, and then I wasn't sure, and then my head started spinning around and I jumped back into the "What's with Whitey" thread...

I know...that's why I got confused and deleted my last post...but you quoted me on the driving thing, so I thought maybe you were talking about driving, and then I wasn't sure, and then my head started spinning around and I jumped back into the "What's with Whitey" thread...

You're so going to get in trouble. TG