Friday, July 11, 2008

It's Friday Night, Does the BPD Know Where Your Kids Are?

Curbing Crime with Child Curfew Centers? (Say that five times fast). Not sure how I feel about it. On one hand, if it will keep kids out of trouble (and harm, in this case) perhaps it has its merits. On the other hand, should the Government be responsible for enforcing certain behavior that the parents should? Also, is it a violation of rights by holding them?

The parents have had their say, but what do you think?

8 comments:

I am so wise said...

"Should the Government be responsible for enforcing certain behavior that the parents should?"

What kind of idiot question is that? Yes, it should. The job of the police is to pick up the pieces of bad parenting whether it is children roaming the streets at all hours because of poor supervision or arresting criminals because of poor or inappropriate parental instruction in regard to education on basic manners and civility in a civil society.

John Galt said...

Perhaps what the Cynic meant was:

'When kids get out of control and wander the streets, shouldnt we be pounding the neglectful parents?'

John Galt said...

Notice that over one in six are adjudicated criminals and the parents interviewed appear to be opting out of assuming any responsibility. They're advocating that their kids should just be allowed to run amok.

haakon said...

Yes, the government should be responsible for enforcing the law.

The Baltimore Cynic said...

In my haste, I inadequately phrased the question. What I meant to ask was, "Should the government be responsible for enforcing certain behavior that the parents should be doing in the first place?

I'm taking a more of a Libertarian view in raising the question, namely should the government be paternalist when the parents aren't (in many cases) doing the job they're supposed to? Its important to note that this isn't always the case since, as noted in the article, this is sometimes done by parents for other reasons (ie: no A/C).

Hope this helps.

haakon said...

'When kids get out of control and wander the streets, shouldnt we be pounding the neglectful parents?'

Seems to me like the parents ARE getting pounded. They have to drag their asses out of bed, and next time, they get fined, or worse.

from the article:
Now, the city corrals the young violators in a building full of workers who want to do more. The youths are photographed and interviewed and checked in a computer database of open warrants or probation records. They're fed a boxed lunch. Then comes the call to their parents, who arrive sometimes hours later, almost always disgruntled, with identification in hand. The parents are given a primer on curfew law and the penalties they face if their children get picked up again: up to $300 and 60 days in jail.

Meanwhile the social services, and more importantly, law encforcement, get their hands on these kids and puts them through the system.

Seems like a good program all around to me.

If the cops were smarter about it, they could really improve the results/limit the complaints of reasonable citizens by shooing the good kids back inside instead of taking them in. And if they don't know who the good kids are, then they aren't doing their job.

Notice that over one in six are adjudicated criminals...

All the better reason to get our hands on them, no?

...and the parents interviewed appear to be opting out of assuming any responsibility. They're advocating that their kids should just be allowed to run amok.

Well to be fair, only some of the parents appear to be opting out, and regarding those who are...of course these people are advocating lawlessness. What do you expect from them? You have to assume they don't care and move on from that, they're hopeless. Get the kids off the street and the city will be safer for everyone.

burgersub said...

"BCPD" = "baltimore county police department," not "baltimore city police department."

John Galt said...

I suppose I'm a tad more punitive thn most. I'd like to see the (hopeless) parents converted into Soylent Green.