III.

The non-implementation of Curfew among 18 years old and below is

practicable for reasons that:
1. The government serves the lawful legitimacy to abolish the measure.
A. The government, particularly the legislative department or any other institutions
where such power is delegated or similarly vested, has the authority to incur
adjustments on general communal policies.
B. The widespread implementation of curfew laws have had started during Martial
Law. As such, it has really nothing to do with crime reduction; hence, the prior
intention starks about political motivations.
C. The government has the agencies intended not to necessarily focus on curfew
laws but more on tangible crimes which juveniles did not actually commit. The
insufficiency on data and viable empiricism concisely complement the merits of the
contention.
2. The security forces can focus instead in strengthening the current laws
without virtually delimiting the activities of the youth.
A. Having a night life as tantamount to undesirable behavior is merely a popular
stigma generated by the people under a conservative culture.
B. Crime is a result of poor law enforcement and crime prevention efforts. A curfew
is reckoned to be immaterial and irrelevant.
C. Restricting youth from going outside is an implied circumvention of their liberty.
The government may induce its security force instead through initiating
collaborative efforts with NGOs so as to strengthen security measures. After all,
security is about making the environment a safer place and that is not by
disallowing people to exercise their freedom to move externally.
D. Should there be youth participation on the pronounced number of crimes, it is
alternatively recommended for the government to utilize the production of
recreational sites so as for them to come up with other activities. Limiting the
activities of the youth due to reported increase of crimes does not suffice the logic
behind curfew laws. This is tantamount to visualizing the restriction of youth from
extending their communal engagement in night time just because of that instance
where the real problem spawns around crime reduction. The measure is seen to
transgress the normative notions of liberty with emphasis on age threshold.
E. The policy itself is flawed. The teenagers, in most cases, just find ways so as to
for them to induce escapade through adult supervision. Just like the popular juridical
standpoint, laws have loopholes one can just overrule it by simply utilizing the
provisions per se.

3. In the United States, the imposition of curfew laws faces various legal
challenges. It is likewise significant on the part of the Philippines
considering that our legal system is patterned after the former.
A. According to the literature review conducted by Ruefle and Reynolds, little or no
recent empirical evidence indicates that curfew initiatives do not have an effect on
juvenile crime, nor has research addressed the impact of curfews and their
enforcement on the criminal justice system as a whole.
B. Others argue that curfews give law enforcement excessive power to detain
children without probable cause and subject them to police questioning in violation
of the fourth amendment's guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure.
C. Meanwhile, other critics argue that curfews violate the equal protection clause of
the 14th amendment by establishing a suspect classification based solely on the
age of a group of individuals. Age shall not be a basis on determining the maturity
of an individual as to discernment of what is morally right or wrong.
CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH
Practicability
"Once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer, just as when
curfew or home detention is placed on an individual."
Your honors, to men and women of all ages, I bid all of you, a good day!
The fact is, if a teenager wants to find trouble, he or she can do so before the
curfew ends, Barbara F. Metz, author of Put Yourself in Their Shoes, writes
in Boston. Do I believe in curfews? Yes. Do I think they will keep a child out of
trouble? It depends what you mean by trouble. If you mean trouble with the law,
there are lots of discussions about that. If you mean, will curfews keep her from
getting pregnant? From smoking cigarettes? Trying pot? Drinking? Hanging with the
wrong kids? Not so much. These are all activities that determined teens will find a
way to do, curfew or not. What protects teens from these and other potentially
dangerous activities are not rules and punishments but conversations and
relationships. From respecting you and trusting you and feeling respected and
trusted by you in return. These are qualities that happen over the course of a childs
lifetime.
While general curfew ordinances may be valid when imposed during
emergencies to restore public order and minor curfew ordinances may be permitted
when they contain specific prohibitions needed to remedy a demonstrable social
evil, no legislation may unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with a person's
freedom, whether it be to move about or to stand still, unless such interference is
necessary to protect the rights and welfare of others.

Curfews violate rights, and their effect on crime is not significant enough to
justify this. Proponents may claim that any reduction in crime is worth it, but
America, for example, has a tradition of supporting individualism and limited
government. There must be a compelling state interest before we can suffer any
infringement of our rights. If the general public feels this way, one can wonder how
curfews are ever implemented.
Violations of individual rights only last when they target a minority group. In
the 40's, it was Japanese-Americans; today it is young Americans. Founding father
Thomas Paine once listed the conditions under which rights can be suspended and
regulations imposed. "So long as the majority does not impose conditions on the
minority, different from what they impose on themselves, though there may be
much error, there is no injustice." A curfew imposes a set of regulations only on the
minority (young people) and is clearly an injustice.
Everything curfews achieve can be achieved better through legitimate
means. If youth crime is considered a problem, we need to attack the roots of crime.
Providing better jobs, opportunities, and education would offer inner city youth an
incentive not to commit crimes or roam the streets at all hours of the night. Parental
responsibility (and tailoring government laws to protect the family and give it
authority) would make a superior substitute for the "nanny state."
Age related curfews have no place in contemporary society. They are an
outdated idea that should fall away like slavery, segregation, and sexism. The
society should enter the new millennium as the land of the free where everyone
enjoys equal rights and freedom.
In North America, several years ago violent crime among young people
peaked at an incredibly high rate. Parents and voters were shocked and alarmed at
the horrific actions of teens and gangs. They demanded a solution and politicians
were all too happy to comply. What followed was a wake of bad laws including
curfews, school uniforms, and senseless drug testing. Curfews are a bad idea,
proven wrong time and time again. Most areas still have unenforced curfew laws
sitting around on the books. This must change.
Even if they are not enforced, simply having the laws on the books is
dangerous. Curfews have historically been enforced against minorities or whichever
group has found disfavor with law enforcement officials. During World War II,
Japanese-Americans were forced into internment camps or placed under strict
curfews. Though the court system initially allowed this, eventually the courts began
to show hostility to curfews.
The basic idea behind curfews is that young people should not be out and
about at a certain time at night. This assumes that young people are inherently
guilty and must be out committing crimes if they are not in bed. Since most
businesses are closed, police and politicians feel there is no reason for young people

to be traveling at night. Young people should not have to prove to the government
that what they are doing is right; in a free society it is the government's duty to
prove that an act should be illegal. Abridging this right or placing the burden of
proof on the individual is a dangerous attack on all liberties.
Some curfews don't violate your right to move about, they violate your right
not to. Politicians, fearing gangs and assuming that every young person hanging out
on the street corner must be pushing crack and peddling prostitutes, have found
another way to violate rights.
The latest trend in curfews prevents loitering. These anti-gang ordinances
allow young people to travel outside, but prevent them from congregating (an
obvious violation of assembly and association rights). Like other injustices,
dedicated activists are fighting these. Libertarian Dave Doctor, who organizes
curfew protests, instructs followers, "Cops always tell you to move along when it's
past curfew. Don't listen to them because SLAVERY IS THE FINAL DESTINATION FOR
PEOPLE THAT ALWAYS MOVE ALONG." Simply put, public officials have no reason,
rationale, or right to place you under a curfew.