Curfew Would Violate Rights

Re “Battle Over Day Curfew Shaping Up,” Aug. 26:

I am absolutely in favor of higher school attendance, lower truancy, lower dropout rates, lower juvenile crime, etc.; but I am absolutely opposed to a daytime curfew.

This ordinance is highly discriminatory and a direct violation of our children’s civil rights. Police should have probable cause before stopping and questioning anyone, a juvenile or an adult.

Questioning a juvenile just because he or she is out on the street is just as discriminatory as pulling over an ethnic in a white neighborhood or a junky car in a rich neighborhood. Yes, truancy needs to be dealt with, but it needs to be dealt with in a way which does not violate the civil rights of our children.

LISA WOOLERY

Orange

*

* Life, liberty and the pursuit of childless streets would be a good paraphrase of daytime curfew laws, ensuring that everyone from 6 to 18 years old is a suspected truant from 8 a.m. until 2:30 p.m., 260 days a year.

Effectively criminalizing 470,000 Orange County students proves “good intentions” and “good law” are not necessarily related, though they have the same first name. Do the chiefs realize how well this would undermine their officers? It would marginalize the excellent effort of the gang detail, and change the equation from peace officer, a friend of children and teens, to roving detective, with probable cause and suspicion at every youth encounter, building up latent hostility in the process.

Turning the tables, many more adults commit crimes during daylight hours; so, maybe everyone over 18 should carry a note from their employer.

We’d need truancy checkpoints on all street corners, Disneyland rides and the malls for fair and equitable enforcement. My image of America and the obvious target, teens, is a lot brighter!

LEN BECKMAN

Anaheim

*

* As a local high school student, I am well aware of the disturbing rise in juvenile crime. I would applaud any law that would attempt to keep children in school and off the streets.

But because of the thoughtless manner in which the daytime curfew propositions are being developed, I oppose them. It is unrealistic to burden police with the monumental task of stopping school-age children during school hours.

These curfew laws appear to be drafted in desperation. I know several teachers who teach at year-round schools, where one-third of the school’s children are on break at any given time. In addition, at high schools, many students, including myself, are allowed to leave school early on a daily basis because of the scheduling of classes. Because the proposed laws would target students between the hours of 8 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., I would be subject to detainment by the police department.

According to the proposed laws, students would be required to show proof that they can legally be out of school, such as a school I.D. card. It is unrealistic to expect elementary school children, many of whom are not even given I.D. cards, to consistently be carrying photo I.D. wherever they go.

Instead, I would recommend a plan that works at the school level, where students who receive numerous unexcused absences are aggressively tracked by truant officers. Then, as the curfew laws require, parents would have to go to court-approved parenting programs, and the children would be required to do community service. Although I think the intent of these laws is good, they need to be developed in a more realistic and well thought out manner.

GABRIEL MCGOWAN

Fullerton