[giberson]

Laws in the US are far too strict.

I am one of the people that are covered by this statistic, I was arrested around age 16. For curfew.

Curfew, the law that says you can't be outside after an arbitrarily dictated time.

Absolutely ridiculous. For what it is worth--my record has been "expunged" and this arrest has not affected my adult life at all.

[Crito]

Philadelphia instituted a youth curfew because local highschool kids developed a interest in flash mobs. Not flash mobs where lots of people in a train station start dancing all of a sudden, but rather flash mobs where they all start texting all of their friends that they are going to all meet at 15th and South Street in 10 minutes to riot and loot.

I'll grant that in most cases youth curfews are probably senseless, but in some cases they are used as desperate measures by cities looking to curb random organized violence committed categorically by bored teenagers on hot summer nights.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/10/philadelphia-fig...

I was living in that city while that stuff was going full swing; it was truly insane. When you walked through areas that were frequently targeted and looked down the alleys, you would see that every single alley on the street was filled with cops, some in riot gear, and some on horseback, and paddy wagons. They would just be standing around, waiting for the call for where the flash mob would be that night.

[worklogin]

If it were adults, would you be as casual about people being told to stay in their homes because of some troublemakers?

[Crito]

"Teenagers" is a pretty tight age-range and those Philadelphia riots were large enough to overwhelm the police; if that age range were expanded to 14-70 and a similar percentage of that group were rioting, then that is a massive riot.

A curfew was implemented during the 1992 LA riots and enforced by the California Army National Guard. I think that is the sort of situation which you are describing, and I think that a curfew is appropriate in that sort of situation.

Would I be casual about it? Casual is a weird word; nothing about that sort of situation is casual. I would support such a curfew however.

[alexeisadeski3]

I suppose many of them would.

[coldtea]

>Curfew, the law that says you can't be outside after an arbitrarily dictated time.

We had curfew laws in my country too.

Mostly during German occupation, under World War II.

I'm amazed people in the "land of the free" even have such a law...

[pyre]

Curfew laws are mostly aimed at children and don't apply to adults.

Would you draw parallels between the government legislating that 'school-aged' children must go to school and the US decreeing that all Japanese people on the west coast must go to internment camps? Probably not.

[coldtea]

>Would you draw parallels between the government legislating that 'school-aged' children must go to school and the US decreeing that all Japanese people on the west coast must go to internment camps? Probably not.

Sure, why not? It's a little worse with the Japanese people case, because of the racism involved, but on the other hand, it was an era of war between the two countries.

Byt curfew for children? Even children aged 14 or 15 years old? That's no business of the law.

[thaumasiotes]

Yep, I'd draw the parallel too. Why do you think it's ridiculous?

[baddox]

I would draw that parallel.

[kazinator]

And I would take all the downvotes for doing so, too, that you may be spared. :)

[kazinator]

As someone who had to go to school, yes I would.

[alexeisadeski3]

Absolutely.

[jedmeyers]

I unknowingly broke the curfew when I came to US the first time as an exchange student, also at age 16. As it turned out later my host parent has been waiting for me on a back parking lot while I was out on the street corner. Anyway, instead of an arrest I got a free ride home in a police car. I wonder if it has something to do with the skin color or that the area I was in is a low crime neighborhood.

[barrkel]

Curfews? That sounds like something out of a police state.

I did not know the US had curfew laws.

[skittles]

The U.S. is overly protective of children and young adults. We can't drink alcohol until 21 and many cities have curfew laws for kids up to the age of 16 or so. My city has a curfew for those 16 and under. They can't be out after 11 pm during the week and after 12:30 am on weekends.

[kazinator]

"Teens cannot be out after 11 pm" is more about protecting the neighborhood from teens.

[EpicEng]

Well, I don't know; why are 15 year olds walking the streets at 1 a.m.? Something is wrong there 99.99% of the time. I don't think they should be arrested though, just returned home. I had cuffs thrown on me for curfew when I was 16 or so. No arrest, but seriously, cuffed and thrown into a pen.

[watwut]

This kind of thinking, right here is a problem. The "something is wrong there" assumption is wrong all too often. The assumption that the situation requires cops is wrong too - the wrong thing is most likely a parenting issue and should be dealt with by parents.

Do not take me wrong, I do plan to restrict my kids movements in age appropriate ways and if they are out at 1 a.m. it better be for good reason and with my prior approval.

However, even if it is without mu approval, the appropriate punishment is not cuffing nor arresting them. That kind of thing should be reserved for potential criminals that are flight risk or about to be violent. Teaching teens that arrests are normal part of life and done for normal growing up infractions teenagers occasionally commit in all parts of world is inherently wrong.

[EpicEng]

"Should be dealt with by parents", I agree. Often, it is not, so the community has to do something. I don't mind a curfew for kids, but I don't think it should be a criminal offense either.

[barrkel]

Me, I was walking home from a friend's house after staying up late pair programming on the weekend.

Me, in '95. No curfews in Ireland, of course.

[EpicEng]

One exception does not disprove the rule, and honestly, I wouldn't let my kid walk home at that hour.

[peckrob]

As others have said, they only apply to minors (under 18) and are usually restricted to certain hours and days. And they can vary depending on the cities, counties and states. It can be a kinda confusing mishmash of laws for those who live near the borders.

I grew up outside Knoxville, Tennessee. The curfew in the city was 17-18, Monday-Thursday, 11pm-6am, Friday-Sunday, Midnight-6am. 16 and under, subtract an hour from when curfew began. There were all sorts of exceptions, too. Like if you were coming home from work, accompanied by a parent, coming home from a school activity, etc.

But I lived out in the county, where there was no curfew law. Pretty much the only time I crossed into the city limits was to work and go to school. So it's weird driving in one area where being out is a crime, but you cross through this one intersection and suddenly it's not a crime anymore.

Add to that, it is ... irregularly enforced, to put it best. I was out pretty late at times when I was 17, and never had any issues. I even got pulled over once in town at 1am for speeding. I had been over at my friend's house playing Dungeons and Dragons and lost track of time. I was just told to slow down and go home.

It seems like one of those laws that is a "convenience law." I.e., it's there for the convenience of the police if they see something suspicious and want to question you, or something they can hit you with if they don't like your attitude.

[2muchcoffeeman]

It seems like one of those laws that is a "convenience law." I.e., it's there for the convenience of the police if they see something suspicious and want to question you, or something they can hit you with if they don't like your attitude.

That that simply to provide something to charge you with? If you are acting suspicious, surely they have the power to question you anyway curfew law or no curfew law?

[peckrob]

That was poorly phrased. Let me see if I can do better.

Simply being out late is not sufficient reason to be stopped or questioned for most people. It gives them a reason to stop and question people who are out late and may be up to no good. If you look young enough that you might be out after curfew, that's reason enough for them to stop and ask you for identification.

Obviously, if they see you doing something illegal, they're going to stop you. But simply "being suspicious" can involve a wide range of things, and curfew laws give the police a reason to, at the very least, ask for identification if you look like you might be underage.

In general, I think these laws are intended to deter gang activity and what people might refer to as "anti-social behavior" elsewhere (petty crime, graffiti, etc). As a result, I'm betting they are more heavily enforced in inner city areas rather than in suburbs or rural areas.

[jahmed]

Sure but that not the most useful aspect of this. If you are out past curfew and underage you've committed a crime. The police officer has a specific and arcticuble reason to perform a terry stop and search you. If they find something illegal on you that's a bonus but now you're trapped. Its an easy way to establish probable cause and gain compliance.

Even better is looking young and driving past curfew. Again this is the kind of thing officer will use for a PC stop. Sure you're 20 but the officer doesn't know than until you've been stopped and provided license, registration, and proof of insurance.

[TheCoelacanth]

If they want to search you, they would need probable cause; simply "acting suspicious" isn't enough. Overly broad laws like this give them a convenient way of bypassing the 4th amendment.

[sgk284]

They're not that common. It varies from state to state and town to town. Where they do have curfews, they only apply to minors.

[nostrademons]

They don't federally, but some municipalities do.

[alexeisadeski3]

The US is a police state...

[mpyne]

"The US" has no nationwide law mandating curfews.

The Tenth Amendment allows states and local municipalities to set and enforce curfew laws though, and many do.

[wutbrodo]

Would something like that be included in "arrest" statistics? My experience with running afoul of curfew was basically akin to getting a ticket (I believe it was a misdemeanor, not a ticketable offense, but I mean there was nothing resembling an arrest going on).

[NhanH]

I'm not sure, but does this have anything to do with being common law rather than civil law?

To be more specific, it's not a matter of the law being "too strict", but rather it's too vague and have to be interpreted by a judge. So until someone actually fight a case, the interpretation could be too broad and can be used easily. In civil law, you pretty much have to iterate everything.

Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about. I used to live in a country with civil law, and since moving to the US, the common law system has always fascinated me.

[AnthonyMouse]

The vagueness of the laws are a different problem. If the laws were just vague then you could have judges interpreting them in favor of defendants as often as prosecutors.

If you had to point to one thing as the cause of all this, it is likely to be the privatization of criminal justice. As soon as you have a private prison or a defense contractor selling military-grade equipment to civilian police forces, you create the incentive for those organizations to lobby for more "customers" through broader prohibitions, tougher enforcement and harsher penalties.

[baddox]

> The vagueness of the laws are a different problem.

It's not really that separate. One way to have a very restrictive society with a high incarceration rate is to have a clear set of laws that are explicitly strict and strictly enforced. Another way is to have a set of laws so large, complex, and vague that it is literally physically impossible for anyone to know whether he or she is breaking a law by performing any given action, or laws so broad in scope that everyone is almost guaranteed to be guilty of something. While there is certainly some of both, I think the latter is a more accurate description of the United States.

> As soon as you have a private prison or a defense contractor selling military-grade equipment to civilian police forces, you create the incentive for those organizations to lobby for more "customers" through broader prohibitions, tougher enforcement and harsher penalties.

You don't even need "private" prisons or defense contractors in the sense you're probably thinking. Even organizations that are operated directly by government are subject to those personal incentives, because it's still individuals who rely on the government funding, both laborers for their livelihood, and higher level officers for career advancement, prestige, and power. Heck, even politicians who are elected directly often have perverse incentives, because the actions required to get reelected are potentially quite different than the actions which would accomplish the traditional goals of "good" government (like upholding law, being fair, increasing prosperity, etc.).

[mpyne]

I find it fascinating how so many systemic problems in the U.S. have such simple causes and easy solutions on HN.

[watwut]

Only 6% of american prisons are private.

[jfoutz]

It would be interesting to see corruption prosecution rates of judges sending people to private vs public prisons. All i can really think of are the 2 kids for cash judges, i'm sure there are plenty of unpaid corrupt judges as well.

[AnthonyMouse]

What point are you trying to make? It's not like public prisons send lobbyists to Congress to refute arguments being made by private prison lobbyists.

If 6% of your cells are cancerous you're in deep trouble.

[nickff]

In some states, the issue is not the private prison lobby, it is the prison guard lobby, which can be quite strong, as they may have a near monopoly on the provision of such services.[1][2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Correctional_Peace_O...

[2] http://kalwnews.org/audio/2011/07/19/just-how-powerful-calif...

[rayiner]

And most of the laws people on here don't like (I'll add cerfew for teenagers to the running list) were instituted long before we had a non-negligible amount of for-profit prisoners.

[coldtea]

That's 6% too much.

Letting private corporations profit from incacerated people? What's next, slavery for the blacks? Oh, wait that's been tried already...

[GregBuchholz]

>and have to be interpreted by a judge.

...and don't forget the important role that is supposed to be played by the jury. I always like opportunities to link to common law resources. I like:

"HAYEK, THE COMMON LAW,AND FLUID DRIVE"

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/nyufinal.pdf

"The Myth of the Rule of Law":

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm