New Curfew Law

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:14 pm

I suspect the goal of this curfew is to stop bad behavior from youth including things like noise, petty theft, grafiti, tresspassing etc. Don't we have laws on the books that allow the police to arrest people that are engaging in bad behavior?

Grace is right. The majority of problems in city - even the nuisance ones are created by older individuals - talk to the people that live around the bars - the noise, public urination, trespassing is caused by people over 21. I would much rather have the police spending time arresting people who were gettting into cars after a night in the bars and endangering people's life by driving under the influence than picking up students walking home from a high school football game a little late.

And the most serious crime is as well I would venture to guess.

Why punish everyone to get to the few bad eggs? My kids were pretty spoiled, I'll admit and we did pick them up - but if they had watched a movie at a friends house in the neigborhood for example on the weekend and then walked home - I would not think that was unreasonable.

I would have walked/driven home after working or babysitting after 11:00 when I was growing up and not thought a thing about it.

This reminds me of laws like not using a cell phone when driving or not eating when driving when we have laws against reckless operation already.

To me this is a redundant law - enforce the laws against bad behavior that we have and don't generate new laws that are against an entire segment of the population.

I think Hunter may be right about ageism in our society. See his article in the Lakewood Observer. http://lakewoodobserver.com/pdfs/Observ ... e%2003.pdf Page 18.

Brian Pedaci · Post by **Brian Pedaci** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:08 pm

I think there are some good points being raised here about redundancy, but it all goes back to Cleveland's curfew law going into effect. For Lakewood not to match Cleveland's curfew hours is an open invitation to troublemakers to cross the border at 10pm.

I'm all for kids having to carry some permission from work/parents if they have a legitimate reason to be out after curfew. That should solve most of the enforcement issues.

Grace O'Malley · Post by **Grace O'Malley** » Tue Jun 26, 2007 3:03 pm

Yes, what about kids in vehicles?

The law states:

No child under the age of xxx shall be upon the streets or sidewalks or any public property...

So does this mean that a kid in a car is violating curfew if driving after 11PM?

It is very unclear whether a teen in a car is included in this curfew although I suspect many teens assume they're OK if in a vehicle.

You can't legislate morality or good parenting policies. you can only clearly, swiftly, and decisively deal with what society has determined to be criminal behavior.

We have laws to cover activities deemed criminal and we should apply them in an unequivocal manner.

Shawn Juris · Post by **Shawn Juris** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:26 am

I would imagine that this had to be asked by now but how many citations had been issued for curfew violation before the change? Sounds like many are trying to make a case that it's an overbearing, outrageous law but it's just a change of an hour or an hour and a half. The point about the Cleveland Curfew seems to make more sense than anything to justify the change.

Grace O'Malley · Post by **Grace O'Malley** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:21 am

The point about the Cleveland Curfew seems to make more sense than anything to justify the change.

Since when do we follow Cleveland's lead?

I wouldn't call Cleveland a paragon of a forward thinking city.

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:58 am

Grace O'Malley wrote:
The point about the Cleveland Curfew seems to make more sense than anything to justify the change.
Since when do we follow Cleveland's lead?

I wouldn't call Cleveland a paragon of a forward thinking city.

Grace

While I agree that the sooner we separate from Cleveland the better.

I think Shawn was referring to the point that Cleveland kids will flood into Lakewood for that extra 30 minutes he mentioned.

.

Grace O'Malley · Post by **Grace O'Malley** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:18 am

My point was that while Cleveland imposed an earlier curfew in the mistaken belief that it will reduce crime, we decide to follow their lead with the same lame excuses, including the one that Cleveland youth will rush into Lakewood.

Maybe we should follow the national sentiment and erect a fence on the Lakewood Cleveland border.

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:40 am

It does disturb me that we are singling out a group that has does nothing wrong to restrict. I think we should punish bad behavior. If we are profiling - are children our biggest problem out in the evening?

If anyone suggested that our biggest problems come from Women out at night or blacks out at night or Clevelanders out at night - they would be hung out to dry.

But we can discrimate all we want against teens and everyone seems to think it is okay. I have no problems with parents restricting what their child is doing. But I know I refused to patronize stores that said only 2 school age children allowed in at a time.

While we are doing these crime statistics - it would be interesting to see who commits the most crimes in Lakewood. I think we are barking up the wrong tree and I really hate to see the limited police budget focused on this and away from real problems.

JMHO

Grace O'Malley · Post by **Grace O'Malley** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:06 am

Why do we single out young people/teens even though there is no evidence that they are a major cause of crime?

Because they are such an easy target - they don't vote.

Jeff Endress · Post by **Jeff Endress** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:08 am

Because they are such an easy target - they don't vote.

Not only that, a lot of them wearing sagging pants can't run very fast and they're easier to catch.

Jeff

J Hrlec · Post by **J Hrlec** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:19 am

I have some extra bricks if we can start building that wall on 117th

... OK just kidding ....

Ivor Karabatkovic · Post by **Ivor Karabatkovic** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:21 am

Well knowing a ton of young people, probably more than most people on the deck here, I tend to disagree.

I think that teens are a lot more involved with politics and voting nowadays. last years seniors were very involved and so was my class. we were eager to get signed up to vote.

I can't wait until the "teens" start to vote. then the cry will be "there's too many young people voting!"
two of my good friends actually want to run for the BOE positions this year, and one hasn't even graduated from LHS yet.
I hope your generation has that kind of an example.

Jeff Endress · Post by **Jeff Endress** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:28 am

Ivor

I don't think that's what Grace meant. Most certainly, 18 and 19 year olds ARE excited about excercising their franchise. I think she had the 13 to 17 year olds who are too young to vote in mind.

Jeff

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:49 am

Ryan Salo · Post by **Ryan Salo** » Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:26 pm

I don't know too many 18 year olds let alone 16 year olds that would have the correct mindset when going in to vote. Heck, most of the people that I meet every election year don't even know the issues or the candidates as they walk into the polls. I say we need to have folks take a basic test. If a 12 year old passes they can vote, if a 65 year old fails they can't. It is amazing how many people show up to "do their duty" and don't have a clue what they are doing.

It reminds me of when I used to take high school tests. i used to make cool patterns

BTW - Anyone have any thoughts on not allowing non property owners to vote on property tax increases? If it is free to folks why not vote for it? I am not saying I am for this, just asking questions.