Curfews

Thoie

Hope this is the right area for a reasonable discussion

I honestly think it would be a good idea to have a legal curfew in place for children - those under the age of 18. I'd set this curfew for 8pm in winter, 9pm in summer on week nights (but I'm open to alternative curfew times, with reasons why). On Friday and Saturday nights, the times could be a bit later, maybe. Anyone under the age of 18 found outside after that time would be recorded, and their parents would be made pay a substantial fine. Under 18s would be allowed out after curfew in the company of an adult over the age of... 25?

I've mentioned this theory to many friends, and most of them were horrified, and mentioned breach of rights etc. Some tried to say that it would be unfair, and would stop people doing legitimate things.

My first question is is my idea so whacky and horrendous?
Secondly, what are these legitimate things that teenagers/kids would need to be doing outside after hours?

I think it would force parents to take more responsibility for knowing their children's whereabouts. It would not prevent children having a few friends over in the evening, as long as a parent took the responsibility to walk/drive/accompany the kids home.

You could still go to the cinema, but you'd just have to arrange for your older brother/father/uncle to meet you after the pictures.

In order to enforce this, people would need identity cards. Gardai would have the powers to stop and detain anyone out after curfew who can't provide proof of age if they have reasonable suspicion that person is under 18. They couldn't use it to annoy a 30 year old they just didn't like. Parents would face a fine of €500 the first two times a child is found breaking curfew. On the third or subsequent time within an x month period (2 months?), the fine would raise to €1,000 each time. This would provide parents with a strong incentive to know where their children are.

So, go on then. What are the flaws in this plan?

Personally I like the idea.

But. The main flaw is that in Ireland anything that suggests a reduction in peoples freedoms will be shot to hell regardless of whether its of some use or not. It won't happen because nobody really wants to acknowledge that there is a real problem, and as a result of that there wouldn't be any backing for it.

Still, I'll sign any petition or such if you get the ball rolling.

[On a side note, I'm 31 now and I remember as a teenager and earlier, that at 6 pm we all had dinner together, and it was rare I would be allowed outside after that. After all there was plenty of homework and chores to do. It was only when i hit 17 that it was relaxed and i got more "freedom"... Things have changed considerably since then for "youngsters"]

jhegarty

Thoie wrote: »

My first question is is my idea so whacky and horrendous?

You only think it isn't because it doesn't affect you. You want to tar all under 18's as scumbags who "must be up to no good" if they are out at 8:01pm.

Could a 17 year old walk the dog at 8pm ?

metrovelvet

^ Or step out to the shop.

Also its an inadvertant curfew for those with kids under 14 who have to be at home supervising younger children.

I'd be pretty pissed off if I got stuck in traffic with my 17 month old and got home at 8:30 and had to pay a huge fine.

Pretty stupid idea.

Hellm0

Whoa whoa whoa!

So let me get this right. Not only do you want to impinge upon the freedoms of one subgroup, but you also want to force EVERYONE to get mandatory ID cards just to prove they are not a part of this subgroup, thereby making it illegal to exist without said ID?

You know even Hitler didn't force non-jew's to wear identification.

jhegarty

jhegarty wrote:

Could a 17 year old walk the dog at 8pm ?

Couldn't he walk the dog at 6pm? Why does 8pm make more sense?

metrovelvet wrote:

Also its an inadvertant curfew for those with kids under 14 who have to be at home supervising younger children.

Yes, it is. But then again they really shouldn't be away without having someone to watch the children, should they? But I guess the current situation of having the under 14's out on the street at night is better. Whatever happened to having some friend watch the kids or getting a babysitter?

metrovelvet wrote:

I'd be pretty pissed off if I got stuck in traffic with my 17 month old and got home at 8:30 and had to pay a huge fine.

Why would you pay a fine? You are with your child. The curfew would be against children/teens being outside unsupervised....

As the OP says "Anyone under the age of 18 found outside after that time would be recorded, and their parents would be made pay a substantial fine. Under 18s would be allowed out after curfew in the company of an adult over the age of... 25?".

Hellm0

Hellm0 wrote: »

Whoa whoa whoa!

So let me get this right. Not only do you want to impinge upon the freedoms of one subgroup, but you also want to force EVERYONE to get mandatory ID cards just to prove they are not a part of this subgroup, thereby making it illegal to exist without said ID?

You know even Hitler didn't force non-jew's to wear identification.

Bit of an over reaction, don't you think? So you're pissed at teens needing to have ID to get booze, or get into a Bar/club?

And he's said they only need said ID if they are outside after curfew, and are caught... Kinda like needing a driving license to be driving a car. Sort of.

Bottle_of_Smoke

No, very unfair. I used to hang around on my streets with mates during my teenage years and we weren't doing anything illegal.

Hellm0

Deleted User wrote: »

Bit of an over reaction, don't you think? So you're pissed at teens needing to have ID to get booze, or get into a Bar/club?

I live in the US, everyone gets asked for ID at bars. And yes it pisses me off.

Deleted User wrote: »

And he's said they only need said ID if they are outside after curfew, and are caught... Kinda like needing a driving license to be driving a car. Sort of.

Thoie wrote: »

In order to enforce this, people would need identity cards. Gardai would have the powers to stop and detain anyone out after curfew who can't provide proof of age

Seems pretty clear cut what he is saying here. The day I am forced to get a national identification card to prove I have the right to walk the streets would be a sorry day for those who brought that law into power.


What's next? RFID chipping our children to make sure we know where they are 24/7? When did it become societies job to tell parents how to raise their children?

metrovelvet

Deleted User wrote: »

Couldn't he walk the dog at 6pm? Why does 8pm make more sense?

Hold on a second. I remember when I was in high school. Classes ended at about 3pm. Then I usually had an hour of detention for something I did wrong, like forgetting a book or being late. Then I had some kind of after school activity. Then I had to get home, which took me an hour, so I often didnt get home until 6 pm. Then I had to eat dinner, clean up and do homework, and that was on the days that I didnt have a part time job after school, on which days I didnt get home until 9 pm.

Plus the doog may not need to go to the bathroom at 6pm!

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, it is. But then again they really shouldn't be away without having someone to watch the children, should they? But I guess the current situation of having the under 14's out on the street at night is better. Whatever happened to having some friend watch the kids or getting a babysitter?

Its not always that simple.

Hellm0

Hellm0 wrote: »

I live in the US, everyone gets asked for ID at bars. And yes it pisses me off.

And you get asked for ID to show that you have the right to be there. If you were underage then you wouldn't have the right to be there, and subsequently shouldn't be there at all. Makes sense.

Seems pretty clear cut what he is saying here. The day I am forced to get a national identification card to prove I have the right to walk the streets would be a sorry day for those who brought that law into power.

You're twisting it. What age are you? 22+? This would apply to those under the age of 18... Not adults. And its the right for kids to walk the streets late in the evening or at night, which frankly them being kids, they shouldn't really have anyway.

What's next? RFID chipping our children to make sure we know where they are 24/7? When did it become societies job to tell parents how to raise their children?

When parents stopped looking after their children... When the pc brigade gained momentum and all went loopy. 20 years ago there was only slight crime arising from kids & teens in the evening or at night. What has changed since then? Go on, think about it.... Its not hard to see why a curfew would solve many of the problems that have developed from those changes...

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Hold on a second. I remember when I was in high school. Classes ended at about 3pm. Then I usually had an hour of detention for something I did wrong, like forgetting a book or being late. Then I had some kind of after school activity. Then I had to get home, which took me an hour, so I often didnt get home until 6 pm. Then I had to eat dinner, clean up and do homework, and that was on the days that I didnt have a part time job after school, on which days I didnt get home until 9 pm.

fair enough. So on average you would be home by 6, and then dinner/cleanup/homework. Fine. Three hours left until curfew. Two hours for dinner/cleanup/homework, and an hour free. Knock your socks off, but be inside again before 9pm. Doesn't sound so awful. In fact, it sounds exactly like how I grew up...

Plus the doog may not need to go to the bathroom at 6pm!

Where does the dog go to the bathroom while you're in school, or having dinner, or doing your homework?

Its not always that simple.

Only if you want to complicate things.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

No, very unfair. I used to hang around on my streets with mates during my teenage years and we weren't doing anything illegal.

Good for you. How long ago was this?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Deleted User wrote: »

Good for you. How long ago was this?

would have been between 98 & 2002.

I also used to go for walks/jogs after study when I was doing leaving cert.

Hellm0

Deleted User wrote: »

What age are you? 22+?

None of your business but I am older then that.

Deleted User wrote: »

This would apply to those under the age of 18... Not adults.

An addendum onto the OP's suggestion was that people would need identification to verify their age. This means that EVERYONE would be required to show identification to Gardai on request, requiring that people over 18 would legally be obligated to obtain government sanctioned/issued ID cards. Not my cup of tea.

Deleted User wrote: »

And its the right for kids to walk the streets late in the evening or at night, which frankly them being kids, they shouldn't really have anyway.

Do you even had kids? What is your logic here, why should children be imprisoned in their own homes?

Deleted User wrote: »

When parents stopped looking after their children... When the pc brigade gained momentum and all went loopy.

Tbh I think this idea is far loopier then the concept of personal freedom. The right to bring a child up as one sees fit is a very, VERY sacred one indeed. It is not the governments job to change people for the "better" nor impose moral beliefs upon them; Doing so would be what you are referring to when you say "PC" so you are kind of contradicting yourself here.

Deleted User wrote: »

20 years ago there was only slight crime arising from kids & teens in the evening or at night.

20 years worth of time has passed, learn to deal with it. Ireland in 1988 was a very different place to Ireland in 2008 and imposing unnatural restrictions upon human behavior is not going to turn the clock back.

Deleted User wrote: »

What has changed since then? Go on, think about it.... Its not hard to see why a curfew would solve many of the problems that have developed from those changes...

What changes? What "problems"?? What do you think this would solve?

podge79

This means that EVERYONE would be required to show identification to Gardai on request, requiring that people over 18 would legally be obligated to obtain government sanctioned/issued ID cards.

dont want to start a fight just for my own info - I always thought people had to show ID to a guard on request? no?

metrovelvet

Deleted User wrote: »

fair enough. So on average you would be home by 6, and then dinner/cleanup/homework. Fine. Three hours left until curfew. Two hours for dinner/cleanup/homework, and an hour free. Knock your socks off, but be inside again before 9pm. Doesn't sound so awful. In fact, it sounds exactly like how I grew up...



Where does the dog go to the bathroom while you're in school, or having dinner, or doing your homework?



Only if you want to complicate things.

Curfew is 8 pm in this scheme of things. This is the most retarted thing I have heard in a long long time. You know what would happen? NO ONE WOULD COME HOME AT ALL UNTIL 8 PM and then do all their homework [ ihad 3 hours a night btw] eat, and perhaps get to bed by 1 am to be up for 6 am the next day to get to school on time.

Hellm0

podge79 wrote: »

This means that EVERYONE would be required to show identification to Gardai on request, requiring that people over 18 would legally be obligated to obtain government sanctioned/issued ID cards.

dont want to start a fight just for my own info - I always thought people had to show ID to a guard on request? no?

Not without a reason. This would shift the burden of truth on to the civilian, if out after a certain time all citizens would have to PROVE that they are over 18.

If I want to go to a bar and drink I accept the burden of truth as it is fairly reasonable that I should be required to prove I am over 18 to get the booze. Why else would I be in a bar but to consume alcohol(presumably, nothing against going dry but you get my point).

If I was out for a walk after 8 why should I have to prove anything?

Hellm0

Hellm0 wrote: »

None of your business but I am older then that.

Wow. A bit moody i can see. Get a grip, I didn't ask anything detailed or particularly personal off you.

An addendum onto the OP's suggestion was that people would need identification to verify their age. This means that EVERYONE would be required to show identification to Gardai on request, requiring that people over 18 would legally be obligated to obtain government sanctioned/issued ID cards. Not my cup of tea.

By rights everyone should have a form of ID with them at all times. Usually a drivers license is acceptable as proof of ID. And the gardai can ask you to show ID at any time.... As can the police forces in any country. Now, normally its not enforced, but everyone should have ID with them at all times. To think otherwise is retarded.

Do you even had kids? What is your logic here, why should children be imprisoned in their own homes?

had Kids? Nope. Have Kids? Nope. But I've lived in Ireland for over thirty years and I've seen the changes that have occured here, and the effects of those changes on the levels and types of crime that occurs here. I live equally in Athlone and Cork, and there have been major changes from when I was a teenager growing up.

How long have you lived in the states? How long since you've lived in Ireland? Do you have kids, and are they growing up in Ireland? (I know its none of my business, but it is relevant to this thread and your participation in it.)

Tbh I think this idea is far loopier then the concept of personal freedom. The right to bring a child up as one sees fit is a very, VERY sacred one indeed. It is not the governments job to change people for the "better" nor impose moral beliefs upon them; Doing so would be what you are referring to when you say "PC" so you are kind of contradicting yourself here.

Ok. You bring up your children as you see fit, you let them roam the streets in the dark, you don't supervise their activities, and then you wonder why your child has been arrested for beating a pensioner to an inch of his life, or arrested for arson, or some gang like activity like beating up random strangers just for the sheer fun of it.

You can raise your children as you see fit. But they're your children, and as such you're responsible for them. Should they remain unsupervised and get into trouble, you're also responsible for that too. Something a lot of parents have forgotten over the last few years....

20 years worth of time has passed, learn to deal with it. Ireland in 1988 was a very different place to Ireland in 2008 and imposing unnatural restrictions upon human behavior is not going to turn the clock back.

Learn to deal with it? Ahh, I see. Bury your head in the sand and hope it will just get better? Good plan.

Imposing unnatural restrictions? Rubbish. These were restrictions my parents and the parents of my friends laid upon us while we grew up. They're only "unnatural" now, because we've gotten so used to ignoring the lack of responsibility being shown to this day.

And if you remembered what Ireland was like in the 80's you'd know very few people would want to go back to it. But we would like to see a serious reduction in youth crime, which is huge now in comparison to the 80's..

What changes? What "problems"?? What do you think this would solve?

Are you taking the piss?

podge79

podge79 wrote: »

This means that EVERYONE would be required to show identification to Gardai on request, requiring that people over 18 would legally be obligated to obtain government sanctioned/issued ID cards.

No, only the teens/kids would need to display the ID. Oh, and also, the adult that is supervising the child outside after curfew.

But then again I can't see what the fuss was about. I always got stopped going into bars/clubs right up until i was in my mid twenties, so I always had decent ID on me. I can't see why some of you guys have such an issue with carrying ID with you. Its not as if you're being asked to show ID at gunpoint.

jhegarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would you pay a fine? You are with your child. The curfew would be against children/teens being outside unsupervised....

As the OP says "Anyone under the age of 18 found outside after that time would be recorded, and their parents would be made pay a substantial fine. Under 18s would be allowed out after curfew in the company of an adult over the age of... 25?".

And if the poster is 24 ? (some people under 25 have children).

Deleted User wrote: »

No, only the teens/kids would need to display the ID. Oh, and also, the adult that is supervising the child outside after curfew.

But then again I can't see what the fuss was about. I always got stopped going into bars/clubs right up until i was in my mid twenties, so I always had decent ID on me. I can't see why some of you guys have such an issue with carrying ID with you. Its not as if you're being asked to show ID at gunpoint.

The difference is you didn't fear arrest if you didn't have ID on you.

Hellm0

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow. A bit moody i can see. Get a grip, I didn't ask anything detailed or particularly personal off you.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Deleted User wrote: »

By rights everyone should have a form of ID with them at all times.

Why?

Deleted User wrote: »

And the gardai can ask you to show ID at any time.... As can the police forces in any country.

Only if they are arresting you or suspect you of having committed or having intention to commit a crime.

Deleted User wrote: »

but everyone should have ID with them at all times. To think otherwise is retarded.

Thank god you don't make the laws round here.

Deleted User wrote: »

had Kids? Nope. Have Kids? Nope.

I see.

Deleted User wrote: »

But I've lived in Ireland for over thirty years and I've seen the changes that have occured here, and the effects of those changes on the levels and types of crime that occurs here. I live equally in Athlone and Cork, and there have been major changes from when I was a teenager growing up.

You mean...things CHANGE over time? My god! Why wasn't informed of this?!

Deleted User wrote: »

How long have you lived in the states? How long since you've lived in Ireland? Do you have kids, and are they growing up in Ireland? (I know its none of my business, but it is relevant to this thread and your participation in it.)

I have lived in the US for one year, I lived all life in Ireland up to that point. I do not have children but I have been involved in raising them.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. You bring up your children as you see fit, you let them roam the streets in the dark, you don't supervise their activities, and then you wonder why your child has been arrested for beating a pensioner to an inch of his life, or arrested for arson, or some gang like activity like beating up random strangers just for the sheer fun of it.


You can raise your children as you see fit. But they're your children, and as such you're responsible for them. Should they remain unsupervised and get into trouble, you're also responsible for that too. Something a lot of parents have forgotten over the last few years....

I do not have children. Most parents raise their children well. Parents who do not should be held legally responsible for that child's behavior I agree however to make it the responsibility of society on a whole to govern how people lead their lives or raise their children is not the answer.

Deleted User wrote: »

Learn to deal with it? Ahh, I see. Bury your head in the sand and hope it will just get better? Good plan.

No, I am not saying that problems need not be addressed however I think this solution is flawed in the extreme.

Deleted User wrote: »

Imposing unnatural restrictions? Rubbish. These were restrictions my parents and the parents of my friends laid upon us while we grew up. They're only "unnatural" now, because we've gotten so used to ignoring the lack of responsibility being shown to this day.

Notice how it was your parents doing this. They did this because they CHOSE to. Other people do other things because they CHOSE to. To deny people a freedom because you think it is immoral is ignorant in the extreme.

Deleted User wrote: »

And if you remembered what Ireland was like in the 80's you'd know very few people would want to go back to it. But we would like to see a serious reduction in youth crime, which is huge now in comparison to the 80's..

Then find a better way to do it than shackling us all with mandatory laws about ID and curfews for children. If your going to tar all children with the same law book then why not all adults? I mean SOME adults are criminals then why not treat ALL adults as criminals? We should have a curfew for adults by that logic. Maybe we should all be forced to stay in doors whilst not in work or church, obviously if we are outside then there is a potential that we are criminals!

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you taking the piss?

Do you expect me to respond to that?

ChocolateSauce

It is a breach of rights. Children do not have fewer rights than adults and you are neither qualified to be their judge nor legally entitled to have any sort of say in how their life is run: that is sole dominion of their parents.

jhegarty

jhegarty wrote: »

And if the poster is 24 ? (some people under 25 have children).

We're hardly talking about introducing this idea into force tomorrow. And the OP put a ? after his suggestion of 25 as if to ask if this was a good age to be used. Maybe there is an exemption on the age limit for parents under 25. I dont know.

The difference is you didn't fear arrest if you didn't have ID on you.

I spent the last 6 months living in Xi'an, China. And I was stopped for ID checks. Same happened years ago, when I spent time in Moscow. Both places I could have been arrested for not having ID with me, and worse things than just being arrested.... But then again I don't have a problem with carrying ID with me at all times..

But you're missing the point of all this. Do you acknowledge that there is a problem with youth crime in Ireland? If yes, do you think that a curfew has a reasonable chance of reducing this youth crime? If you don't, no worries. I'm not the OP. I just said I thought it was a good idea, but I didn't think it up.

metrovelvet

This is not china, this is not russia. This is the west. Get over it.

jhegarty

Deleted User wrote: »

I spent the last 6 months living in Xi'an, China. And I was stopped for ID checks

And they execute people for speaking against the government. That a good idea too ?


How about a parent under 18 ?

Hellm0

Hellm0 wrote: »

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Nah, it was just annoying.

Why?

Proof of identity. Why else? Be reasonable here. Why do you have a drivers license? Why do you have a passport? Why do you have a club card for the local cash'n'carry?

The ID we're talking about is simply another form of identification to be carried, if you don't already have a Drivers license or such. And frankly its intended for the kids rather than adults like you or me.

Its not part of some mad plot to keep us all under tabs. This is just an idea to reduce crime in Ireland. If it was being proposed by the government and being asked to be passed into law, I'd understand some of the extreme concerns you're seeming to have.....

Only if they are arresting you or suspect you of having committed or having intention to commit a crime.

If they suspect you of anything, they can ask you to display ID. If they suspect that you are pretending to be someone else, they can ask you to prove that you are who you say you are...

Thank god you don't make the laws round here.

haha... I'm feeling the same about you.

I have lived in the US for one year, I lived all life in Ireland up to that point. I do not have children but I have been involved in raising them.

involved in raising them? huh? My brother and sister both have children. Two of them are in their teens. I've played with them, helped them with school, and other problems. But they are not my children. They're not under my care, and i'm not responsible for them. Their parents are.

I do not have children.

I see. :rolleyes: [Works both ways.]

Most parents raise their children well. Parents who do not should be held legally responsible for that child's behavior I agree however to make it the responsibility of society on a whole to govern how people lead their lives or raise their children is not the answer.

Its time to stop this right now... This idea of a curfew does not suggest anything about how to raise children. It does not suggest anything to say that the government or anybody will march into a family's home, and tell them to live differently.

This idea is about preventing children (Under 18's) from being allowed outside after a certain hour without adequate supervision. Simple. And very clear.

(If you want to talk about the government telling parents how to raise their children, count me out. We were talking about a curfew)

No, I am not saying that problems need not be addressed however I think this solution is flawed in the extreme.

Fair enough. Your choice. I think its a good idea. There are no plans, there has been no research presented, etc. Its just an idea.

Notice how it was your parents doing this. They did this because they CHOSE to. Other people do other things because they CHOSE to. To deny people a freedom because you think it is immoral is ignorant in the extreme.

Have you heard of incidents where parents have been investigated harshly for cruelty to children, because they may have disciplined (slapped) their child in a shop or on the street? Other people have seen this happening, and decided that parents shouldn't be allowed to hit their children.. at all.

Or, what about assisted suicide/Euthanasia in Ireland? That's denying people the freedom to kill themselves under any circumstances

Know where i'm going with this?

Then find a better way to do it than shackling us all with mandatory laws about ID and curfews for children. If your going to tar all children with the same law book then why not all adults?

Ok, so why is it that children that commit crimes are not sentenced in an adult court? By your reasoning some children should receive adult sentences/punishments.. rather than them all receiving non-adult sentencing...

What would your opinion be if the curfew was only applied to past offenders? Would that be more acceptable in your eyes?

Do you expect me to respond to that?

Not really... I just couldn't believe you bothered to ask me the question considering what the subject was about.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

This is not china, this is not russia. This is the west. Get over it.

Oh ffs. I can't use other examples of where ID is required?

Ok. I've been asked to show ID in London, and Paris. Both by police carrying semi-automatic weapons. Is that a better example?

jhegarty

jhegarty wrote: »

And they execute people for speaking against the government. That a good idea too ?

They don't execute everyone that speaks against them, but thats a different thread. I don't particularly agree with them.

How about a parent under 18 ?

How many parents aged under 18 are living on their own with their children? Personally, I only know of 2 girls (aged 17ish) with children and both are still living with their parents...

jhegarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I only know of 2 girls (aged 17ish) with children and both are still living with their parents...

Well that's ok so, no problem :rolleyes:

metrovelvet

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh ffs. I can't use other examples of where ID is required?

Ok. I've been asked to show ID in London, and Paris. Both by police carrying semi-automatic weapons. Is that a better example?

Where Airport security? Thats the only place in Paris and LOndon that has happened to me.

Thoie

Wow, I'm glad I posted this somewhere for reasoned debate. I'd hate any knee jerk reactions.

First off - I'm a random person on an internet forum throwing out an idea to see what other people think. I'm not in charge of making any laws in Ireland (which it seems many of you will be thankful for), so this is just a discussion. I personally have not, and will not, be taking away anyone's rights.

You want to tar all under 18's as scumbags who "must be up to no good" if they are out at 8:01pm.

Well, no, I’m not tarring anyone as anything. I’m asking for good reasons as to why children should be out unaccompanied late at night. In your example of walking the dog at 20:01, there’s no reason why a parent shouldn’t come with you for the walk – maybe it would give the child and parent a chance to talk, get to know each other. You say you can’t control when the dog wants out – what if the dog wants out at 3am?

its an inadvertant curfew for those with kids under 14 who have to be at home supervising younger children

Someone else has already mentioned this, but there was nothing in my suggestion that would prevent an adult being out late at night with children – going to the cinema, going for dinner, driving home from granny’s, whatever.

You know even Hitler didn't force non-jew's to wear identification.

Please see Godwin’s Law.

I used to hang around on my streets with mates during my teenage years and we weren't doing anything illegal.

So did I, but our parents knew damned well where we were and what we were up to. That doesn’t appear to be the case any more.

What is your logic here, why should children be imprisoned in their own homes?

I don’t see that having a set time to come home at can be considered as imprisonment. As you can see in my original suggestion I was still leaving scope for them to go to social events, visit each other etc..

I always thought people had to show ID to a guard on request?

I don’t believe so – we’re not currently required to carry ID unless buying something that is limited to a certain age group. Not too sure on that one.

Curfew is 8 pm in this scheme of things. This is the most retarted thing I have heard in a long long time.

You mustn’t read the news very often. The 8pm and 9pm marks were only there to start the discussion. I had hoped people might have replied with valid arguments for a later curfew (e.g. “All ballet classes take place from 7:30 to 8:30” or something like that).

You know what would happen? NO ONE WOULD COME HOME AT ALL UNTIL 8 PM and then do all their homework [ ihad 3 hours a night btw] eat, and perhaps get to bed by 1 am to be up for 6 am the next day to get to school on time.

To my mind that argument is reinforcing the idea that children are not capable of ruling themselves and need some guidance on things like time management, commitment and a lot of other things.

imposing unnatural restrictions upon human behavior is not going to turn the clock back.

I’m not entirely sure how these restrictions could be seen as unnatural. Can you clarify please?

And if the poster is 24 ? (some people under 25 have children).

Yes, as mentioned elsewhere the …25? was just bandying around an idea. Obviously there are a lot of people under the age of 25 with children. However just stating that the adult has be over 18 won’t work, as then five 17 year olds would just hang out with their 18 year old mate. I was originally thinking of maybe parent/guardian, but that’s a bit limiting as well. Perhaps you could say “with someone 10 years older than the child” (as the majority of parents would be older than 10 years of age at the time of birth). That’s one of the areas I’d be interested in hearing further opinions on.

It is a breach of rights. Children do not have fewer rights than adults

Well, that’s an interesting area to discuss. Usually you “earn” rights in return for responsibilities. Currently in Ireland, children appear to have rights, but no responsibilities. So it is little Johnnie’s right to set fire to my car, but in a court he is not legally responsible, because he is under age. Children do not have the same rights as adults as things stand. Children do not have the right to enter into a legal contract, or have a credit card, or drive a car or buy alcohol or cigarettes. Should children have the right to do what they want, when they want? That’s what we’re discussing. Obviously I think not.

cork1

KLAZ are you sure you didnt go to the cowen school of how a country should be run? im 18 and i can honestly say i have never commited a crime that hurt, offended or injured anybody. yes i have hung around outside with friends afer dark but so what? we did no harm whatsoever.now please stop discriminating against todays youth. your going to say things have changed but if this happened when you were young you wouldnt have been happy about it and if you were happy then i can see why your like this now. so just grow up act your age and click into reality.

Thoie

cork1 wrote: »

im 18 and i can honestly say i have never commited a crime that hurt, offended or injured anybody. yes i have hung around outside with friends afer dark but so what?

I genuinely wasn't trying to discriminate against children in the original post, and maybe you can help me understand a few things. When I was 18 we never really hung around outside after dark. Most of the time we were in someone's house, or indoors somewhere, whether that be at the tennis club, the gym, the cinema, or dare I say it, a pub.

So what were you doing outside that you couldn't do in someone's house? Was there nowhere indoors to go to? How did you all get home afterwards, or did you all live close together?

Thoie

metrovelvet wrote: »

Where Airport security? Thats the only place in Paris and LOndon that has happened to me.

I've been asked in Frankfurt, not at airport security. I handed over my passport, because they do have a national ID scheme and everyone is supposed to carry ID.

cork1

we preferred it mainly because well if you brounght 9 or 10 friends into your house at night with school the next day parents would be hanging around listening in to what you say and generally being awkward. most walked home i was outside the town so i got lifts from my parents.you can go to the gym or cinema fine but it costs money.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Where Airport security? Thats the only place in Paris and LOndon that has happened to me.

I've been checked on the street before. And I don't dress like a bum or anything.

cork1 wrote:

KLAZ are you sure you didnt go to the cowen school of how a country should be run?

Hmm... where did i suggest that i had gone to such a school, and beyond saying that I like this Idea, where have i suggested in other ways how the country should be run?

In fact, its interesting that this would be suggested to me, since you're just holding the opposite end of the stick. the additions to this thread by all the other posters against the curfew could be construed as to how this country should be run... :rolleyes:

im 18 and i can honestly say i have never commited a crime that hurt, offended or injured anybody. yes i have hung around outside with friends afer dark but so what? we did no harm whatsoever.

Good for you. I mean that. Now point out where i said that every youth in ireland indulged in crime. Or better yet, where i said the majority of young people committed crimes in Ireland.. go ahead. point it out. Really, please do.

now please stop discriminating against todays youth.

Exactly how have i discriminated against today's youth? Have i called them all scumbags? Have i said they all wear hoodies and hand around corners? Have i said they all group together and commit random acts of violence? hmm... Nope. All I've said is that I think the curfew idea is a good idea...

And in theory, i'd support it depending on the measures being brought into play, who was in charge of it, and how it was going to be handled. But nowhere in this thread has there been any of that kind of detail discussed or proposed.

your going to say things have changed but if this happened when you were young you wouldnt have been happy about it and if you were happy then i can see why your like this now.

wow, almost bitchy. Why am I like this now? haha.. Ah sure. I'm a bundle of joy nowadays and its all thanks to being beaten on a regular basis as a teenager by groups of travellers in the lovely town of Athlone. But oddly enough I don't hold any ill will towards travellers. And if i don't have any againt them, why the hell would i have anything against "young people"..

Of course, i wouldn't have been happy with it if it had been introduced when i was a teenager. I don't think i ever suggested that i would be. But then again, I'm not here to make them happy. I couldn't really give a flying f*ck about their happiness.

But then late at night, I'd like to be able to walk past a group of 6-7 teenagers without tensing up, and listening for footsteps following me afterwards...

so just grow up act your age and click into reality.

Act my age? haha. How am i not acting my age? pray tell... this should be good.

Thoie

hunter164 wrote: »

Would you ever go and fcukoff?

That is not cogent argument, and is only reinforcing my perceptions.

For those interested in the rights of children, please refer to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

if you brounght 9 or 10 friends into your house at night with school the next day parents would be hanging around listening in to what you say and generally being awkward.

I think we're getting to some of the root of the problem here. From my own teenage years, things we didn't want our parents to hear involved discussions about the opposite sex and how much homework we had skipped. As we got older, we had conversations with our parents about the fact that we wanted conversations without them present, and reached various arrangements. My parents had the right to sit comfortably in the sitting room and not have the fridge raided by scores of ravenous teens. We, the ravenous teens, were granted the right to hang out in a different room, and to have a little privacy, in that my parents would knock on the door before coming in.

In what way do you find parents are generally awkward when people call over?

podge79

Deleted User wrote: »

No, only the teens/kids would need to display the ID. Oh, and also, the adult that is supervising the child outside after curfew.

But then again I can't see what the fuss was about. I always got stopped going into bars/clubs right up until i was in my mid twenties, so I always had decent ID on me. I can't see why some of you guys have such an issue with carrying ID with you. Its not as if you're being asked to show ID at gunpoint.

just like to say that I was quoting someone else and asking a question re their statement but I messed it up

johnnyskeleton

Thoie wrote: »

My first question is is my idea so whacky and horrendous?
Secondly, what are these legitimate things that teenagers/kids would need to be doing outside after hours?

Logical analysis of social problems runs like this:
1) identify problem
2) find the causes
3) seek ways to remedy the problem.

You seem to have skipped 1 & 2 and just gone straight to 3). Before answering why your idea is so whacky and horrendous, first tell us what the problem is that you seek to remedy. The benefit you point to is:

I think it would force parents to take more responsibility for knowing their children's whereabouts.

but you haven't shown that they don't already take responsibility for knowing their children's whereabouts.

So, go on then. What are the flaws in this plan?

You want to impose criminal sanctions on people because their children do things that you don't like. You need to have a good reason to impose criminal sanctions.

anonymous_joe

What are the children meant to do...?

hunter164

anonymous_joe wrote: »

What are the children meant to do...?

Be good kids and not have any fun.


Thoie get your head out your arse, you were a kid once think back to that time and stop thinking just because you're an adult you can only stay out late.

metrovelvet

Think of all the business that would be lost. Bad for the economy.

Cow Moolester

Deleted User wrote: »

And you get asked for ID to show that you have the right to be there. If you were underage then you wouldn't have the right to be there, and subsequently shouldn't be there at all. Makes sense.



You're twisting it. What age are you? 22+? This would apply to those under the age of 18... Not adults. And its the right for kids to walk the streets late in the evening or at night, which frankly them being kids, they shouldn't really have anyway.



When parents stopped looking after their children... When the pc brigade gained momentum and all went loopy. 20 years ago there was only slight crime arising from kids & teens in the evening or at night. What has changed since then? Go on, think about it.... Its not hard to see why a curfew would solve many of the problems that have developed from those changes...

You're missing the point.
It's fair to need ID to get into a Pub/club. You are entering a privately owned establishment so therefore you abide by their rules (and the law). However, nobody owns outside.
I'm 16 but does that matter? In the grand scheme of things, you aren't worth anything more than me. We are all born free and equal, so why should you have more of a right to go outside than me?

Honestly, the stereotyping that goes on between nearly all adults is just ridiculous. Do you think we all just hang around in our trackies, smoking, doing drugs and vandalising?

Is there some magical barrier between the age of 17 and 18 that makes an 18 year old more competent to go outside after 8pm than a 17 year old or a 16 year old?

hunter164

Let's just be honest Thoie's an arsehole.

Thoie

Cow Moolester wrote: »

You're missing the point.
It's fair to need ID to get into a Pub/club. You are entering a privately owned establishment so therefore you abide by their rules (and the law). However, nobody owns outside.
I'm 16 but does that matter? In the grand scheme of things, you aren't worth anything more than me. We are all born free and equal, so why should you have more of a right to go outside than me?

Honestly, the stereotyping that goes on between nearly all adults is just ridiculous. Do you think we all just hang around in our trackies, smoking, doing drugs and vandalising?

Is there some magical barrier between the age of 17 and 18 that makes an 18 year old more competent to go outside after 8pm than a 17 year old or a 16 year old?

Thank you (genuinely) - an actual discussion with well made points. I realise that the curfew idea may seem like stereotyping of everyone under 18, and no, I don't believe that everyone under the age of 18 hangs around causing trouble.

No, there is no magical barrier between someone age 17 years and 364 days, and someone a day older. However as with all things in life there has to be a cut off point. The general consensus for most laws in Ireland set that point at 18. It's the same difference between driving at 100 kmph, and 101 kmph - one is breaking the law and the other isn't. A 17 year old may not buy cigarettes at 23:59, but one or two minutes later it's suddenly legal.

Similarly with setting a curfew - what is a reasonable time for children (and bear in mind I don't particularly agree with calling a 15 year old a child, but that's what they are in the law) to be out on a week night, and what isn't? Is it reasonable for you, a 16 year old, to be out at 4am on a week night?

If you were to be told that a curfew was going to be enforced, but that all teenagers got to vote on the time of the curfew, what would you vote for? What do you think your parents would vote for?

johnnyskeleton

Thoie wrote: »

Similarly with setting a curfew - what is a reasonable time for children (and bear in mind I don't particularly agree with calling a 15 year old a child, but that's what they are in the law) to be out on a week night, and what isn't? Is it reasonable for you, a 16 year old, to be out at 4am on a week night?

If you were to be told that a curfew was going to be enforced, but that all teenagers got to vote on the time of the curfew, what would you vote for? What do you think your parents would vote for?

Again, what are you trying to achieve with your curfew? Are you concerned with the children's personal development, or are you more concerned for your right to walk down the street without coming across groups of children who you feel intimidated by?

Cow Moolester

Thoie wrote: »

Thank you (genuinely) - an actual discussion with well made points. I realise that the curfew idea may seem like stereotyping of everyone under 18, and no, I don't believe that everyone under the age of 18 hangs around causing trouble.

No, there is no magical barrier between someone age 17 years and 364 days, and someone a day older. However as with all things in life there has to be a cut off point. The general consensus for most laws in Ireland set that point at 18. It's the same difference between driving at 100 kmph, and 101 kmph - one is breaking the law and the other isn't. A 17 year old may not buy cigarettes at 23:59, but one or two minutes later it's suddenly legal.

Similarly with setting a curfew - what is a reasonable time for children (and bear in mind I don't particularly agree with calling a 15 year old a child, but that's what they are in the law) to be out on a week night, and what isn't? Is it reasonable for you, a 16 year old, to be out at 4am on a week night?

If you were to be told that a curfew was going to be enforced, but that all teenagers got to vote on the time of the curfew, what would you vote for? What do you think your parents would vote for?

I wouldn't vote at all and neither would my parents. My parents don't set me a curfew because they trust that I do nothing wrong but I'm sensible enough to be in at a reasonable time.

Also, there are hardly any cases of "children" out at 4AM on a week night causing harm. Sure if that was a widespread problem, then a curfew might be acceptable but I have never even heard of people my age out at 4AM on a school night. Even if they are, that's up to the parents, not you or the state.

We spend most of our week in school and that dominates the day. Then we do our homework/study. With that curfew, we'd only have about 2 hours to actually go out with our friends before spending the rest of the night in our homes.

I mean, adults cause more trouble late at night than children so why don't we just go for an all out curfew then? You don't see 12 year olds outside a club at 3 in the morning pissed off their faces starting fights.

Finally, this curfew would never pass as law for the simple reason that it violates multiple parts of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

The child shall have full opportunity for play and recreation, which should be directed to the same purposes as education; society and the public authorities shall endeavour to promote the enjoyment of this right.
-how can we have a full opportunity when the time we have for recreation is limited?

The best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents.
-"lies in the first place with his parents" see? Not the state. The parent decides.

The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
How can we develop socially if a limit is placed on the amount of time we can spend out with friends? Also, please note the line "in conditions of freedom and dignity". A curfew is the anti-freedom

Thoie

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Again, what are you trying to achieve with your curfew? Are you concerned with the children's personal development, or are you more concerned for your right to walk down the street without coming across groups of children who you feel intimidated by?

Sorry, was coming back to your question

So we were at
1. Identify problem
2. Find causes
3. Look for remedy

Identify problem (and remember, just because I view this as a problem doesn't mean that everyone does):
Many children these days believe they have a right to do what they want, when they want (for a few minor examples, see some posts on this thread where people say children have a right to be out whenever they want). This seems to translate in many cases (note, not all), to children who have no respect for other people in society.
So in my mind the problem is a lack of respect for other people. I'm not saying lack of respect for adults specifically, just lack of respect for anyone else at all.

Find causes:
We have a few generations of parents who cannot/will not set boundaries, or levels of acceptable behaviour for their children. Some of the reason for this can be put down to parents having less time to spend with their kids, parents not caring, parents honestly believing they're helping their children achieve independence. As an example, witnessing a 6 year old shouting racial slurs is a reflection on the parents rather than on the child. There are many other causes - some of it may indeed just be changing times as suggested.

Look for a remedy:
The (unpopular) suggestion I have made is that parents should be responsible for knowing where their children are. There would be legal and financial implications for a parent not knowing where their child is, as that could be seen as not providing enough protection for the child. As I've stated a number of times already, I'm interested in hearing other opinions on the idea (opinions on my personality don't have any particular place in this discussion).



From the simplified version of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: (italics are obviously mine)

Article 12

You have the right to give your opinion, and for adults to listen and take it seriously.
Article 13

You have the right to find out things and share what you think with others, by talking, drawing, writing or in any other way unless it harms or offends other people.
Article 14

You have the right to choose your own religion and beliefs. Your parents should help you decide what is right and wrong, and what is best for you.
Article 15

You have the right to choose your own friends and join or set up groups, as long as it isn’t harmful to others.

Some people have objected to my idea on the basis that it puts restrictions on parents if they have to be checking on where their children are. I'm not precisely thrilled by that response, as to me it sends a message of "I can't be bothered". Apologies if that's not what was meant, but it's how it comes across to me.

I feel that a lot of people are talking about children's rights, without taking note of the areas where parents/adults are supposed to protect and guide, and in the areas where children are not supposed to cause harm or offence to other people.

Many people find the notion of curfews abhorrent, I accept that. People think that my leap of logic from "people have no respect" to "let's have a curfew" is wild and uncalled for.

So if we start from first principles, and accept (for the sake of this discussion) that there is a problem of lack of respect, what alternative causes and solutions can you come up with?

EamonnKeane

Thoie wrote: »

Thank you (genuinely) - an actual discussion with well made points. I realise that the curfew idea may seem like stereotyping of everyone under 18, and no, I don't believe that everyone under the age of 18 hangs around causing trouble.

No, there is no magical barrier between someone age 17 years and 364 days, and someone a day older. However as with all things in life there has to be a cut off point. The general consensus for most laws in Ireland set that point at 18. It's the same difference between driving at 100 kmph, and 101 kmph - one is breaking the law and the other isn't. A 17 year old may not buy cigarettes at 23:59, but one or two minutes later it's suddenly legal.

Similarly with setting a curfew - what is a reasonable time for children (and bear in mind I don't particularly agree with calling a 15 year old a child, but that's what they are in the law) to be out on a week night, and what isn't? Is it reasonable for you, a 16 year old, to be out at 4am on a week night?

If you were to be told that a curfew was going to be enforced, but that all teenagers got to vote on the time of the curfew, what would you vote for? What do you think your parents would vote for?

So what you're saying is, we already have some arbitrary laws, so there's no harm in more arbitrary laws?

The sort of minors who steal cars, sell/take drugs, break into houses, assault people are not likely to be afraid of some culchie garda asking for ID. They have 60 offences already, what's one more? This will mainly affect law-abiding teenagers and is just ludicrous in every way.

It hardly chimes with other laws either. You can marry at 16, drive at 17, but leave the house after Coronation Street? No way!

Couldn't he walk the dog at 6pm? Why does 8pm make more sense?

Because he wants to? Because he had homework? Because TV was on? The State does not own the outdoors.

Well, no, I’m not tarring anyone as anything. I’m asking for good reasons as to why children should be out unaccompanied late at night. In your example of walking the dog at 20:01, there’s no reason why a parent shouldn’t come with you for the walk – maybe it would give the child and parent a chance to talk, get to know each other. You say you can’t control when the dog wants out – what if the dog wants out at 3am?

Your justifications boil down to "It is not very difficult to adhere to this rule, therefore it is a good rule."

By rights everyone should have a form of ID with them at all times. Usually a drivers license is acceptable as proof of ID. And the gardai can ask you to show ID at any time.... As can the police forces in any country. Now, normally its not enforced, but everyone should have ID with them at all times. To think otherwise is retarded.

I don't need a form of ID. If I am not suspected of a crime, why does a guard need to know who I am? And they're not exactly hard for criminals to fake.

had Kids? Nope. Have Kids? Nope. But I've lived in Ireland for over thirty years and I've seen the changes that have occured here, and the effects of those changes on the levels and types of crime that occurs here. I live equally in Athlone and Cork, and there have been major changes from when I was a teenager growing up.

There was less crime back then because there were no drugs and many young men emigrated.

I spent the last 6 months living in Xi'an, China. And I was stopped for ID checks. Same happened years ago, when I spent time in Moscow. Both places I could have been arrested for not having ID with me, and worse things than just being arrested.... But then again I don't have a problem with carrying ID with me at all times..

China and Russia! Land of the free!

Proof of identity. Why else? Be reasonable here. Why do you have a drivers license? Why do you have a passport? Why do you have a club card for the local cash'n'carry?

Because unskilled drivers kill people. Because sovereign states restrict entry of foreigners. Cash n carries don't have clubcards.

Its not part of some mad plot to keep us all under tabs. This is just an idea to reduce crime in Ireland. If it was being proposed by the government and being asked to be passed into law, I'd understand some of the extreme concerns you're seeming to have.....

I can't see it reducing crime. Skanger kids do not fear the law, or fines, or jail, or gardaí, or their parents. This'll just annoy those who obey the law.

se you think it is immoral is ignorant in the extreme.
Have you heard of incidents where parents have been investigated harshly for cruelty to children, because they may have disciplined (slapped) their child in a shop or on the street? Other people have seen this happening, and decided that parents shouldn't be allowed to hit their children.. at all.

Or, what about assisted suicide/Euthanasia in Ireland? That's denying people the freedom to kill themselves under any circumstances

Corporal punishment does not work, because the one who has been hit feels they have been wronged, not that they have done wrong. And the euthanasia thing is because the govt. see supplying the tools of suicide as equivalent to murder, not because they don't want people to commit suicide.

Ok. I've been asked to show ID in London, and Paris. Both by police carrying semi-automatic weapons. Is that a better example?

They do it in London and Paris; therefore, it is correct, is that what you're saying? The French police use ID checks to harass blacks and Arabs; they get stopped 5/6 times a day. It's passive-aggressive intimidation.

They don't execute everyone that speaks against them, but thats a different thread. I don't particularly agree with them.

No, sometimes they poison them illicitly, or give them three years in a reeducation camp without trial. It's good that you "don't particularly agree" with massive electoral fraud, single-party dictatorship, persecution of religious minorities, destruction of workers' rights. Shows the strong moral backbone your upbringing gave you.

I’m not entirely sure how these restrictions could be seen as unnatural. Can you clarify please?

People being told it is wrong to do something they know is not wrong? What's more unnatural than that?

randylonghorn

Thoie wrote: »

I honestly think it would be a good idea to have a legal curfew in place for children - those under the age of 18.

0_o

Under 18 is a child now? So we have children in Ireland legally having sex from the age of 17?

Thoie wrote: »

.

Tbh, I couldn't support this idea for a moment, although I do agree that too many young people are roaming the streets far too late and much too young, with their parents only having a very hazy idea of where they are ... not all parents, not all families, but too many.

Parents have both a right and a duty to raise their own children. If the state is going to abrogate that right in this way, then it must be prepared to take over the linked duty as well.

Fwiw, when I was growing up my parents set reasonable limits, but they also trusted me and expected me to act responsibly towards myself and others. While I was far from an angel, and got into plenty of mischief, I had a bit of cop-on and knew the limits. That's what is often lacking these days.

Cop-on will never be instilled in young people by the state. That's the parents job, and they are in the best position to do it.