• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should government be able to impose a curfew on adults?

Should the government be allowed to impose a curfew on adults?


  • Total voters
    50
0013729e44e1127db7c92c.jpg

The father of the nation. All of china are his children.


but no srsly, yes, under certain circumstances. While I don't know if this ferguson one is one of them, certainly in the case of say, virus pandemic or other such outbreaks, yes, curfew can and should be imposed. And yes, even on adults.

A mayor or governor could always send out an advisory alert or something to its citizens. If the situation is bad enough (like with a pandemic) you can bet people are going to stay indoors anyways.
 
`
If adults act like children, they should be treated like children.

If a few adults acted like children should all of the adults be treated like children?
 
A mayor or governor could always send out an advisory alert or something to its citizens. If the situation is bad enough (like with a pandemic) you can bet people are going to stay indoors anyways.

You sure about that? I wouldn't be that sure. Most people are stupid. And they don't react well to such news. Maybe their instincts would be to jump in a wagon and hit the road.
 
most of the time, i would say no

but there are times, where the safety of citizens, officials, and property demand it

this is one of those times

curfew should always be a last resort....but it needs to be an option when needed
 
You sure about that? I wouldn't be that sure. Most people are stupid. And they don't react well to such news. Maybe their instincts would be to jump in a wagon and hit the road.

In the case of a deadly and contagious disease, it is perfectly reasonable to quarantine the infected city, separate the healthy from the ill, and work from there. I don't see how a curfew is going to help anything. Diseases aren't nocturnal.
 
It is.



Adult Curfews & Strict Scrutiny

Curfews directed at adults touch upon fundamental constitutional rights and thus are subject to strict judicial scrutiny. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that "[t]he right to walk the streets, or to meet publicly with one's friends for a noble purpose or for no purpose at all—and to do so whenever one pleases—is an integral component of life in a free and ordered society." Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 US 156, 164, 31 L. Ed. 2d 110, 92 S. Ct 839 (1972).

To satisfy strict-scrutiny analysis, a government-imposed curfew on adults must be supported by a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to serve the curfew's objective. Court's are loath to find that an interest advanced by the government is compelling. The more justifications that courts find to uphold a curfew on adults, the more watered-down becomes the fundamental right to travel and to associate with others in public places at all times of the day.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this right may be legitimately curtailed when a community has been ravaged by flood, fire, or disease, or when its safety and Welfare are otherwise threatened. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 85 S. Ct. 1271, 14 L. Ed. 2d 179 (1965). The California Court of Appeals cited this ruling in a case that reviewed an order issued by the city of Long Beach, California, which declared a state of emergency and imposed curfews on all adults (and minors) within the city's confines after widespread civil disorder broke out following the Rodney G. King beating trial, in which four white Los Angeles police officers were acquitted of using excessive force in subduing an African-American motorist following a high-speed traffic chase. In re Juan C., 28 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 919 (Cal. App. 1994).

"Rioting, looting and burning," the California court wrote, "pose a similar threat to the safety and welfare of a community, and provide a compelling reason to impose a curfew." "The right to travel is a hollow promise when members of the community face the possibility of being beaten or shot by an unruly mob if they attempt to exercise this right," the court continued, and "[t]emporary restrictions on the right… are a reasonable means of reclaiming order from anarchy so that all might exercise their constitutional rights freely and safely."
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Curfew legal definition of Curfew

I think the case law as cited above is reasonable. It should be confined to a the smallest area necessary and people in that area should be allowed to go out for the purpose of leaving the area whenever that is possible safely.
 
I don't know whether government should have authority to impose a curfew. But I've never heard of a state where public safety officials did not have authority to impose a curfew where necessary to maintain law and order. I suppose if the majority of people in a state didn't like that, and wanted to encourage rioting, they could put something in the state constitution prohibiting any municipal government in the state from imposing curfews.

I would think curfews are useful in maintaining order. Preventing large groups of people from congregating outdoors at night is obviously desirable when they are likely to riot. It's usually harder to get away with criminal violence during broad daylight.
 
If a few adults acted like children should all of the adults be treated like children?
`
From my understanding of law, the constitution allows for a governmental body to err on the side of the "prevention of harm" over the existence or expansion of liberty and freedom. A temporary curfew, limiting the legal movement of all people during certain times, to maintain order and peace, during times of civil unrest for example, is perfectly legal and logically sound.
 
`
From my understanding of law, the constitution allows for a governmental body to err on the side of the "prevention of harm" over the existence or expansion of liberty and freedom.


Well, I am looking at this from a moral viewpoint rather than a legalist one. But even then, I think that is a very broad requirement. Obviously everyone is safer with a curfew no matter the circumstance.

A temporary curfew, limiting the legal movement of all people during certain times, to maintain order and peace, during times of civil unrest for example, is perfectly legal and logically sound.

Here in Chicago, we have areas that are in a constant state of civil unrest. It may not be getting the news that Ferguson is getting, but far more die on the average weekend over here.

7 Killed, 29 Wounded in Spate of Weekend Chicago Violence | NBC Chicago
 
No, adults are not children and should not be treated like children.

I don't know man, I've seen some very childish adults before, my moron brother would be the first.
 
I don't know man, I've seen some very childish adults before, my moron brother would be the first.

Well, as soon as he violates another person's rights then the police should do something about it.
 
I think the case law as cited above is reasonable. It should be confined to a the smallest area necessary and people in that area should be allowed to go out for the purpose of leaving the area whenever that is possible safely.

So do I. In substantive due process and equal protection suits involving fundamental rights, the Supreme Court applies its strict scrutiny standard to the government action that restricts those rights. For this purpose, the Court considers all First Amendment rights fundamental, and the ones a challenge to a curfew would probably invoke are freedom of assembly and freedom of association. In some situations, I can imagine the freedom of speech also being involved. And the Court has also recognized a fundamental right to interstate travel, which as the article mentions might come into play.

As that article also notes, the fact a law restricts a fundamental right does not by itself make it unconstitutional. It just means that the government has to show the restriction is necessary (the Court has also used the phrase "narrowly tailored") to achieve a compelling government interest. In other words, the government has to show there's a very important purpose for what it's doing, and that there is no other effective way of doing it that would intrude less on the right.
 
Should government be able to impose a curfew on adults?


I say no.Government is the servant of the people not the boss of the people. If a few bad apples are rioting and looting then get the police to arrest those individuals. Government has absolutely no business telling the people when they can and can't leave their homes.

When justified it's a good way to know who should be out (coming/going to legit personal business) and should not (looters etc. roaming after natural and man-made disasters). A polite stop and check intent would be fine with me. Have been through that with NG after F5 tornado.
 
If the people would act like adults rather than apes, there would be no need for it at all. I don't like thd idea of curfews, but to think the cops can actually arrest all the nuts out there, when serious rioting and destruction is going on, is naive thinking. Authorities respond to the level of threat. If people cant act in a civilized manner, they don't deserve to be treated as such.
WooHoo!!! You rock Miss Lizzie! :rock

And you dwarf most men in the kahonie dept, girlfriend_ :cheers:

I wanna have your baby! :blushing:

Wow, you really chose to use the word "ape"?
IMO; Lizzie's choice of words was absolutely indicative of the uncivilized predatory behavior displayed by the looter/rioters!

Try to keep in mind AliHaji, that we're talking about the Ferguson savages here and not the peaceful protesters!
 
WooHoo!!! You rock Miss Lizzie! :rock

And you dwarf most men in the kahonie dept, girlfriend_ :cheers:

That is just my age showing. :lol:
Once you get past a certain point, you just don't much care anymore what anyone thinks, except for the people you really hold close to your heart, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with speaking out what you really think and believe to be the case. I am increasingly appalled at some of my fellow humans, that they can be so unthinking, and act purely on emotion. Emotion is fine and good for your personal life and for meaningful human interactions, but it's a horrid master, if it dictates all your actions. If someone wants my respect, they have to act like a grown-up. I will always be well- mannered to people I don't know, but respect has to be earned.
 
Yes, when public safety warrants it, for reasonable periods of time.
 
Should government be able to impose a curfew on adults?


I say no.Government is the servant of the people not the boss of the people. If a few bad apples are rioting and looting then get the police to arrest those individuals. Government has absolutely no business telling the people when they can and can't leave their homes.

As with anything else, it depends on circumstances.

And fyi...getting those police to arrest those that are rioting and looting...1: far easier said than done. 2: the police IS a part of the government.
 
I should have hit maybe under certain circumstances.... my bad.
 
Wow, you really chose to use the word "ape"?

Sure... why not? Is there something wrong with labelling those acting uncivilized and wantonly destroying their society as animals?
 
I meant to vote for #3. Oops.
 
Sure... why not? Is there something wrong with labelling those acting uncivilized and wantonly destroying their society as animals?

Because the word animal wasn't used. It was the tone deaf use of the word ape.
 
Should government be able to impose a curfew on adults?

I say no.Government is the servant of the people not the boss of the people. If a few bad apples are rioting and looting then get the police to arrest those individuals. Government has absolutely no business telling the people when they can and can't leave their homes.

In general I would agree. In situations of looting and destruction of property?

What seems quite obvious, though, is that local police, politicians and judges should be removed from all responsibilities in situations, where civil order is allowed to break down.
 
Back
Top Bottom