ACLU supports juvenile delinquency in Yakima

Posted on August 14, 2006

A story from Yakima, WA regarding the city’s proposed common sense curfew for minors:

Despite warnings from the American Civil Liberties Union, plans to consider a curfew are moving ahead in Yakima.

Hours and exemptions have been drawn up for review by the City Council at a yet-to-be-scheduled date.

“We must have a lot of parents in this community who have given up being parents, and it’s sad,” said Councilman Norm Johnson. “We have to do something about kids running around at night.”

The Washington State Chapter of ACLU, based in Seattle, is urging the city to reject the plan. It says a curfew unfairly restricts the movements of young people and may be illegal.

The proposal calls for a curfew from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and midnight to 6 a.m. Friday and Saturday. It would affect people younger than 18. Fines would be up to $250 per offense.

There are about 10 exemptions to the curfew. For example, minors could travel to and from work and run errands for their parents. Married and emancipated juveniles would be exempt.

Jennifer Shaw, ACLU’s legislative director, argues the city should instead give youths more to do and work on improving law enforcement.

The city, which has apparently been experiencing a rise in youth gang activity and graffiti, has not called for a blanket prohibition on minors between these hours, offering exemptions and the autonomy for police to use professional discernment. This all makes sense, but what is the ACLU’s position? Midnight basketball. Oh, and “improving law enforcement.” Isn’t this what the city is doing?

While the city seems to be going about this in a good faith effort to protect the community (you know, doing their job):

Yakima police are, in fact, now compiling statistics to determine juvenile crime trends, said Councilman Micah Cawley, a member of the city’s public safety committee, which proposed the curfew. Other committee members are Bonlender and Susan Whitman.

City officials say proving a trend would give them a better chance of withstanding a constitutional challenge.

“We have a real gang and graffiti problem here,” said Cawley, adding he wants to hear more from the public before casting his vote. “It takes a combination of things to crack down on that.”

Yakima approved a juvenile curfew in 1994, but enforcement stopped three years ago when the state Supreme Court ruled existing curfews in Sumner and Bellingham were written too vaguely to pass constitutional muster.

Justices said minors have the right to move freely in public places and that curfews interfere with parents’ rights.

Parents’ rights to do what? Allow their deliquent children to roam the steets and terrorize the community?

While the city is acting in good faith, the same can’t be said for the ACLU:

Shaw said she’d be disappointed if Yakima passes a new curfew. The ACLU will intervene if juveniles call it complaining that their rights are being violated, she said.

“Why spend money on litigation if you don’t have to?” Shaw said. “We’re not inviting that; we respond to it.”

As if they don’t already have clients lined up. As if this isn’t a threat to what is likely a small bank account city. In classic ACLU-ese, the quote above means: “In others words, bow to the ACLU or we will destroy you.”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

» Filed Under ACLU, News

Trackback URL

Comments

2 Responses to “ACLU supports juvenile delinquency in Yakima”

mattm on August 15th, 2006 11:30 pm

F**k the ACLU. What about the rights and liberties of residents who don’t want property vandalized by gangs of youth roaming around? Right, victims last, criminals first.

I don’t know why reports don’t mention the reasons why the ACLU was founded, and why that is not in big huge letters on their home page.
kerwin_brown on August 16th, 2006 2:28 am

I always saw curfew was meant to aid good parents. I am kind of interested in what kind of parents let their children roam that late at night. I am also kind of interested on where the federal courts got the authority to try a case between a state and a citizen of that state because it is not in the U.S. Constitution. I also don’t remember anything in the U.S. Constitution that says curfews are illegal. I wonder what constitution the Supreme Court uses. It certainly is not ours.