Let's take a possible example of what could happen if we let things get out of control (which I guess they already are, but that's I suppose for the schools to figure out):
A teenager is outside during school hours. An officer approaches, asks the teen why they aren't in school.
Teen could reply, "I'm homeschooled." Then what happens?
Is the officer legally able to ask for the teen's name? What if the teen gives a false name and address? Is that really illegal for the teen to do that?
If the teen is legally outside (ie if s/he is legitmately homeschooled) and decides to be a nudge by giving false information to an officer, what is the consequence, if any?
If the teen did nothing wrong, there would be no legimate reason for the officer to have that teen's name and address. Is providing false ID info to an officer with no reason to ask for it illegal?
Now, what if the teen is lying and really SHOULD be in school? The teen gives false information to the officer - then what happens?
Teens don't have homeschooling or private school "papers" they carry with them. No way for a questioning officer to know if the teen is telling the truth or not.
So officers can question youths now - big deal. They shouldn't HAVE to question anyone, because the SCHOOLS should know who is and isn't sitting in their seats. Those who are truant can theoretically be identified and approached.
There really is no need for officers to question youth if the schools are doing their jobs. ANd if the schools AREN'T doing their job, where is the accountability?
When are communities going to stand up and demand accountability of their schools and their citizens (teens included)?
More importantly, when are communities going to rise up and admit - the SCHOOLS DON'T WORK FOR EVERYONE, particularly for teens. Some teens don't belong in school at all. It is not "for them." Why is that wrong or illegal?
It's not as if they have nothing to offer, or that they can't contribute to society. It's just that schools can't meet their needs to express their gifts and talents.
What do you think happens when we force ALL young people to do something that serves them absolutely NO purpose? We hem them in by instituting an environment in which they simply cannot win, nor succeed, nor really learn. We tell them they MUST be in the prison like atmosphere of schools. If they leave the stifling environment, they CAN'T get a job or be productive because THAT IS ILLEGAL!
The problem is not the teens, and not even really the parents. Maybe the parents are frustrated because they don't really think school is the best option for their 15, 16 and 17 year olds. Maybe these parents are right, but they are also constrained by the same rules we've put in place for the teens.
What a mess.
What normal human being wouldn't act out?
Monday, March 3, 2008
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Curfew meeting
See the following article for information regarding "curfew enforcement."
http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/yd/local/ci_8406631
Hopefully the daytime curfew issue will be put to rest by this date, but in case it is not, plan to attend.
And even if the daytime issue is removed, we should plan to attend because obviously our community needs more involvement. In order to avoid propositions that remove freedoms in the future, I wonder how we could each make a positive impact on crime and juvenile delinquency.
I do know that when individuals and groups put their minds to something, they can make it happen. There is evidence all around us showing it's true. Now might be the time to really focus on ways to improve the quality of life throughout the city and county.
http://yorkdispatch.inyork.com/yd/local/ci_8406631
Hopefully the daytime curfew issue will be put to rest by this date, but in case it is not, plan to attend.
And even if the daytime issue is removed, we should plan to attend because obviously our community needs more involvement. In order to avoid propositions that remove freedoms in the future, I wonder how we could each make a positive impact on crime and juvenile delinquency.
I do know that when individuals and groups put their minds to something, they can make it happen. There is evidence all around us showing it's true. Now might be the time to really focus on ways to improve the quality of life throughout the city and county.
Other web discussion links
There is some discussion regarding the curfew issue at this site:
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/york-daily-record/TUDNTG9M3JP12S8OJ#lastPost
There are a few different threads of comments - see the index on the right hand side of the page.
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/york-daily-record/TUDNTG9M3JP12S8OJ#lastPost
There are a few different threads of comments - see the index on the right hand side of the page.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Research
This is a link to an interesting study finding no support for the use of curfews to deter or prevent crime.
However, this study is not "solid" as some of it's statistics involve correlations and not regression analyses. As those familiar with statistics should know, correlation does not prove causation.
But the information and findings are still relevent if consumed with some caveats.
http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/curfew/curfew.html
More rigorous abstract, although I have not read the entire study:
http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/587/1/136
Another decent looking study..
http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v1n2/males.html
However, this study is not "solid" as some of it's statistics involve correlations and not regression analyses. As those familiar with statistics should know, correlation does not prove causation.
But the information and findings are still relevent if consumed with some caveats.
http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/curfew/curfew.html
More rigorous abstract, although I have not read the entire study:
http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/587/1/136
Another decent looking study..
http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v1n2/males.html
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Short update for clarification
Just to clarify, as I've gotten some questionrs regarding the status of this proposal...
This must have been under discussion for some time, as the task force has put together the proposal already.
Then, they sent out the proposal to all the municipalities in the county. As I understand it, all the municipalities must agree to this, because it is being presented as a county-wide curfew.
Perhaps our biggest area of impact could be contacting each of our individual municipalities directly and stating our objections. If we can make our community leaders understand our opposition, we should theoretically be able to stop this.
I am very concerned as well about the lack of adequate and accurate media coverage. Why would the papers ignore an important aspect of this proposal that would actually be a NEW law? Might they have an agenda?
I have written a letter to the YDR editor. I hope it is published in the next few days - I will link to it when it is online.
This must have been under discussion for some time, as the task force has put together the proposal already.
Then, they sent out the proposal to all the municipalities in the county. As I understand it, all the municipalities must agree to this, because it is being presented as a county-wide curfew.
Perhaps our biggest area of impact could be contacting each of our individual municipalities directly and stating our objections. If we can make our community leaders understand our opposition, we should theoretically be able to stop this.
I am very concerned as well about the lack of adequate and accurate media coverage. Why would the papers ignore an important aspect of this proposal that would actually be a NEW law? Might they have an agenda?
I have written a letter to the YDR editor. I hope it is published in the next few days - I will link to it when it is online.
"Just charge them with something"
I've been thinking quite a bit about curfews this week, in addition to the research I've done to see what others have come up with regarding the efficacy of restricting movement around a community.
Why, when curfews clearly make no impact on arrests, overall crime, and truancy, do so many communities have them? From the data I have come across, over 200 communities across the nation have some sort of curfew laws.
Some comments in the press run along the lines of "No good can come of teenagers out in the streets at 1 AM." I would argue with that and can immediately think of the teenagers whose mission it is to serve the homeless in the cities around the country by handing out blankets and food. Sometimes this is done at night, when it is most needed.
But even if I agree that teens should be in their houses after a certain time, how does this decrease crime?
A person cannot be arrested unless they commit a crime (in America). A crime is determined by a set of laws that tell the citizens, "This is a crime, we as a community believe it is heinous/dangerous enough to deserve punishment."
Clearly, life threatening behaviors are going on in York City. Those responsible should be found, prosecuted, and punished.
When it becomes challenging to arrest the ones commiting crimes, I think the decision makers have the belief that if we lower the bar regarding what is considered criminal/illegal behavior, we can then arrest/prosecute people for a lesser crime. I suppose the hope is that scaring them with the legal process for a lesser crime will prevent them from commiting a more serious crime later on.
At least I THINK that must be the logic. I can't imagine what other rationale there would be.
Are curfews a variation on "If we bring them in, maybe we can find a charge so SOMETHING will stick?"
If groups are restricted more and more, then eventually more violations will happen. Then what? Too many restrictions diminishes the potency of law. If we are constantly told "No, no, no," people get frustrated and then complacent. If a truant is already a truant, what would they care about a curfew fine?
If freedom is to be limited, we NEED to see data showing that, in this case, fines for curfew violations have a specific and favorable impact on crime.
Which brings me to another point of contention - I fail to see exactly what goal the task force is attempting to reach. When implementing a plan, it is best to have the end in mind, a specific goal towards which to work. For instance, "We hope to see arrests decrease by X% as a result of instituting daytime curfews because that has been shown in the past."
Nowhere in the proposal is there any language regarding the specific indices the task force hopes to impact.
On truancy.....
If a teen is truant, that is all we need to know. The truants are theoretically easily identified.
If the schools fail to track their truants, allowing them to wander the streets, then the schools need to be held accountable.
My children's right to move about freely during the day should never be challenged or questioned.
If the schools fail to cope with truancy, the citizens of York who feel threatened by a group of teens on the streets can call the police, or they can call the school directly. Or they can call Child Protective Services and report suspected child neglect.
Truancy is a multi-faceted problem, requiring a multi-pronged approach to reduce. None of the published research data that I have found shows that curfews work.
There are researched-based programs that DO work. They strive to increase engagement with schools, increase familial support, and work to improve the belief in teens that they do have a bright and meaningful future ahead of them.
Let's help them get there by doing what we know works. Who will pay for this? We all already are.
We can increase apprentice programs in the community by incentivizing businesses who agree to take on teens for training and education in a trade. Allow these businesses to pay teenage apprentices below minimum wage.
If we can increase teens' engagement with the businesses in their neighborhoods, they will feel more obligated to the functioning of the city.
Why, when curfews clearly make no impact on arrests, overall crime, and truancy, do so many communities have them? From the data I have come across, over 200 communities across the nation have some sort of curfew laws.
Some comments in the press run along the lines of "No good can come of teenagers out in the streets at 1 AM." I would argue with that and can immediately think of the teenagers whose mission it is to serve the homeless in the cities around the country by handing out blankets and food. Sometimes this is done at night, when it is most needed.
But even if I agree that teens should be in their houses after a certain time, how does this decrease crime?
A person cannot be arrested unless they commit a crime (in America). A crime is determined by a set of laws that tell the citizens, "This is a crime, we as a community believe it is heinous/dangerous enough to deserve punishment."
Clearly, life threatening behaviors are going on in York City. Those responsible should be found, prosecuted, and punished.
When it becomes challenging to arrest the ones commiting crimes, I think the decision makers have the belief that if we lower the bar regarding what is considered criminal/illegal behavior, we can then arrest/prosecute people for a lesser crime. I suppose the hope is that scaring them with the legal process for a lesser crime will prevent them from commiting a more serious crime later on.
At least I THINK that must be the logic. I can't imagine what other rationale there would be.
Are curfews a variation on "If we bring them in, maybe we can find a charge so SOMETHING will stick?"
If groups are restricted more and more, then eventually more violations will happen. Then what? Too many restrictions diminishes the potency of law. If we are constantly told "No, no, no," people get frustrated and then complacent. If a truant is already a truant, what would they care about a curfew fine?
If freedom is to be limited, we NEED to see data showing that, in this case, fines for curfew violations have a specific and favorable impact on crime.
Which brings me to another point of contention - I fail to see exactly what goal the task force is attempting to reach. When implementing a plan, it is best to have the end in mind, a specific goal towards which to work. For instance, "We hope to see arrests decrease by X% as a result of instituting daytime curfews because that has been shown in the past."
Nowhere in the proposal is there any language regarding the specific indices the task force hopes to impact.
On truancy.....
If a teen is truant, that is all we need to know. The truants are theoretically easily identified.
If the schools fail to track their truants, allowing them to wander the streets, then the schools need to be held accountable.
My children's right to move about freely during the day should never be challenged or questioned.
If the schools fail to cope with truancy, the citizens of York who feel threatened by a group of teens on the streets can call the police, or they can call the school directly. Or they can call Child Protective Services and report suspected child neglect.
Truancy is a multi-faceted problem, requiring a multi-pronged approach to reduce. None of the published research data that I have found shows that curfews work.
There are researched-based programs that DO work. They strive to increase engagement with schools, increase familial support, and work to improve the belief in teens that they do have a bright and meaningful future ahead of them.
Let's help them get there by doing what we know works. Who will pay for this? We all already are.
We can increase apprentice programs in the community by incentivizing businesses who agree to take on teens for training and education in a trade. Allow these businesses to pay teenage apprentices below minimum wage.
If we can increase teens' engagement with the businesses in their neighborhoods, they will feel more obligated to the functioning of the city.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
