Introduction

In the heart of democracy is the idea that citizens are equal before the law. In elections, each citizen has a voice. If citizens accused of crime or believe that their rights have been violated, they expect equal treatment before the tribunals, whether rich or poor, religious or atheists, politicians or political activists.

Every democratic society should seek the right to equal protection of its citizens to give. However, a large community of citizens subject to many laws, but has no way to form these laws: the youth. Children and young people are an important part of any nation. They are subject to corporation tax, the provisions of the Member State, but they are treated differently under the law because of their age. You can not vote, and they do not have many privileges and responsibilities of senior citizens. Instead, laws are enacted to help and protect them or to protect the entire society. One of these laws is the curfew for young people.

Analysis of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CURFEW LAW [1]

curfew laws to be challenged by a variety of constitutional grounds. Although some may argue that little has no constitutional rights, the Supreme Court in many cases has ruled that people have constitutional rights regardless of age. Often these cases relate to issues of student rights in schools. Tinker v. Des Moines School District in 1969 decided that the students were entitled to free speech in school. [2] This case involved the way the school authorities had banned a group of students to complete their symbolic protest of the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands. The constitutional rights of young people were in many other cases, such as freedom of religion in schools, where religious activity is permissible as long as it is run by youth said. In the case of Missouri v. Danforth, in 1976, he was told directly that the people have all the constitutional rights regardless of age. In the opinion of the court: not developed

Although young people are exposed. many restrictions because of age, has a long judicial precedent for people with all constitutional rights regardless of age.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that the rights of free speech and freedom of assembly together. To voice opinion, it is sometimes necessary to collect protests, and the only way to do that if there is freedom in the public, as is freedom of peaceful assembly. The Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees that, the national and local governments can not, the rights of the First Amendment. Curfew laws, but many wrote in the exceptions to free the perpetrators, if they are involved in a political protest allowed. The importance of the use of public property such as streets and parks for the implementation of the policy speech was the freedom of assembly under the First Amendment of The Hague c. protected since CIO, U.S. 307 496 1939th This case involved a group of people denied a police permit a meeting in a building in Jersey City for his communist hold. The by-law required anyone carrying out a speech praising the disability from the government a permit from the police, prior to obtaining a lease in any room or building for the implementation of the discourse. [4] However, in Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 554, 464 (1965), was considered States may impose reasonable regulations on assembly. In the opinion of the court:

There is no justification for ignoring the red light because this animal was thought to be a means of social protest. Could we, contrary to traffic regulations, insist on a meeting of the road in the middle of Times Square at rush hour as a form of free speech or assembly.

However, regulatory measures have severely as to achieve the legitimate goals of public regulation are defined. Although the Supreme Court is the interpretation of freedom of expression broadly, his interpretation seems to close the assembly.

curfew laws directly remove the right to assemble in public and often private property. The constitutionality of curfew laws on youth has not yet been tested in the Supreme Court. Lower courts are unconstitutional on the subject, the decision of many, and the decision of many constitutional divides. The Supreme Court has never seen a case with a curfew law in history, Kiyoshi Hirabayashi v. United States of America done in 1943. This case was introduced to a curfew by Japan during World War II. It has been confirmed as the Court found constitutional rights have been less true in times of war.

curfew general often in response to an emergency situation, such as riots have been imposed, and were generally implemented only a few days to several weeks. The main difference is that they are intended to be temporary from the beginning, while the youth curfew should be permanent. A general curfew, which applies to all citizens take temporary emergency measures in the Supreme Court in Janet Stotland v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been brought. [6] They refused to hear the case. However, Justice Douglas objected, arguing that the curfew laws are necessary if the national security is threatened, but they raised serious questions about proper installation. He said he was concerned about the possibility of abuse of rights clearance curfew in the audience of “undesirables” such as minorities, and he supports a curfew law should be strictly limited and defined.

The judiciary is often a test to determine whether a law is just narrowly defined and do not give authorities too much power. Many lower courts ruled that a law ruled unconstitutional curfew of youth by the Constitutional Court that was subsequently taken after many exceptions in the law. Although the curfew violates laws against constitutional rights, the courts decision in favor of the curfew laws of the State they have a “compelling state interest” to reduce youth crime and victimization. Few people care about the rights of others, and it usually only takes care of their own. Many adults do not appear on the rights of youth in all levels of care that are illegal by their very presence. A survey asking the Wichita State University towns a number of questions that the laws of the curfew was not a city that has not had a curfew law, stating the constitutional issues as a reason for not less than [7]. For these reasons, the only aspect of the curfew laws say that really, when you need to, and whether they actually reduce its stated goal of youth crime and victimization and a “compelling interest of a country.

Nationwide, the majority of the cities say with curfew laws, they are very successful in reducing crime. In a survey conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors conducted it was found that officials believe in 88% of cities with curfew laws, they have to contributed to juvenile delinquency. [8] However, as the Los Angeles Times investigation reported n ‘does not include a statistical analysis of the impact of curfews on crime. “Could [9] In addition, I can not find a study on the effectiveness of curfew laws, which a test, the statistical assumption that the level of application curfew negatively correlated with the level of crime to the other guys. He was alone in dealing with the basic procedures for the use of controlled data and tests of statistical significance. The curfews have been about a long time, and crime statistics of the study are easily accessible. The fact that virtually no research has been carried out when so many people are calling for curfew laws large are success seems quite irresponsible and should give skepticism. Although statistics often used to deceive, they are often the only way to measure the real world, if done correctly. enforcement of the Act that say “observe” a drop in youth crime should explain exactly how they will monitor. prosecutions officers what crime report shows conveniently crime decreased. is, for example, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, a study of the curfew laws in 1996 used [10] and victimization in some cities are the numbers from other, and the number of arrests for crimes not. selected others There are no controlled comparisons, and it is therefore useless for scientific purposes [11]

Youth curfews.? protection or punishment

curfew law of youth make it illegal for young people, mostly 16 or 17 years, and in the streets during certain periods, usually from 23.00 bis 04.00 Clock These laws are part of a larger group of crimes Äústatus. is AU status offense something that is illegal for a young man there, but legally, when performed by an adult. According to the Land Other examples can be smoking or drinking in public are, running away or not at school during a normal school day.

The United States is the current leader in legislation and implementation of curfew laws. These laws are adopted in the rule and implemented by the provinces or municipalities. In the 1990s thousands of American cities, nearly three-quarters of all cities over 100,000 Residents adopted, laws curfew for young people. These laws were part of a response to increased juvenile crime that occurred in the United States between 1988 and 1992. In these four years, homicide increased by 55 percent of minors. “forcible rape increased 27 percent and aggravated assaults jumped 80 percent. Young people under 16 years, was responsible have for 62 percent of juvenile violent crime, but statistics also that young people are the most common goal of youth violence. curfew laws in the 1990s to the reduction of youth crime prevention and youth victimization enacted.

Not surprisingly, a number of challenges to local laws for fire in the United States have different results. A federal court said that the curfew law in the city of Dallas, Texas, unconstitutional was. The city appealed against that decision before a higher court and the Court held that the constitutional curfew was because Dallas the potential to youth crime and victimization was reduced. Supreme Court also ruled that certain exceptions to the curfew law has the youth and their active parents with enough freedom to move after hours of curfew. Many other municipalities to follow Dallas, for example, AO and curfew laws. However, in 2001, the curfew laws have been successful in the states of Alaska, New Jersey, New York and elsewhere. have challenged in these cases, the curfew laws have been found to violate the constitutional rights of young people and their parents. Arguments the

balance of rights and security

curfews for young people to deal with two ideas: (1) the safety of youth and society, and (2) the rights of youth and adult education

1 .. Young and safe society.

defenders say the curfew can help

young people to protect vulnerable children. Most parents say they are responsible, but many can not their children care, which can then be a victim of street crime and accidents. The curfew, they say, can protect children under supervision and help parents meet their responsibilities. Proponents also argue that the curfew young people against the negative attitudes of young people in areas resist in which the law is considered desirable and gang membership is to fight a status symbol to encourage. The curfew young people to spend more time with their families, and more positive activities such as sports and youth clubs.

People who curfews against argue that covers Fire restricts the rights of parents to educate their children as they choose is to accompany. Require adults, their children to outdoor activities, unreasonable and damaging, because many adults donation, AOT should believe it was not aior, Äîtransport their children in the community.

believe defenders curfews youth and that these laws reduce municipalities accurate and positive way to youth violence. juvenile delinquency is a serious problem that terrorize often with drugs and violence. Gangs communities and create a social climate in the criminal activities for the rule. tackle youth curfews these problems by young people in the streets and prevent them from meeting in the hours of darkness.

Opponents of the curfew, young people are not convinced that such programs really work. These are studies that show no direct link between rates of youth crime and the application of the cover fire of youth. Instead, these studies, other factors (such as population shifts and economic changes) have a greater impact on youth crime as curfews. In addition, these studies have shown that juvenile crime occurs at 15.00 clock at 20.00 clock, the students are dismissed Äîafter school and before returning home for working parents, Airath that during the opening times of the curfew.

curfew for young people, saying their lawyers’ zero tolerance to support the police. This strategy is based on the theory-based, low-level crimes such as breaking windows graffiti tagging and drugs (all criminal offenses for minors), the development of a lawless environment where more serious crime can flourish. Opponents suggest that the imposition of curfews for young people has a great potential for abuse and can generally law abiding on young criminals. They note that more American children accused of crimes curfew like any other crime. They also note that the statistics of the Community United States suggest that the police arrested several non-white than white youths for curfew violations. They also say that curfews affect the poor harder, because young people in poor neighborhoods fewer places to stay to play, or, Äúhang, AU sure, their only chance in the street. Once the burden of a criminal record is, many of these young people go through a psychological barrier to collect as outlaws. Criminal record reduced employment opportunities for young people and the scars of their future. Enforcement of youth curfew can lead to a deterioration in police-youth relations.

2nd The rights of citizens young and old.

Young people can not learn to be responsible, at least they have the opportunity to act responsibly. Opponents of the curfew also note that this type of legislation that all young potential offenders treated. Despite committing only 0.2 percent of young people in the United States serious crime, other youth curfews limit 99.8 percent of young people who engage in lawful activities in the night. In addition, curfew laws tend to discriminate by age, despite the fact that young commit fewer crimes than adults.

The proponents of the curfew youth agree that these programs are the law abiding majority of street youth instead. You see this limitation, as a protection and benefits: it protects law-abiding young of-the-law, and there are the police the advantage of concentrating resources on only a few young people are actively against the law of distribution of rights and security needs of young. and adults with a challenge.

CONCLUSION

beginning of 2009, the Chief Minister of Perlis (Malaysia) its intention to enforce the curfew, announced youth. It aimed to reduce levels of crime and prevent youth against immoral activities involved. But his intention was heavily criticized. Some agree with him, including the Pemuda UMNO Perlis, but most did not agree.

The biggest challenge for the implementation of the curfew for teenagers is the Federal Constitution. It has been shown in many cases [13] and in the Federal Constitution itself all the laws that contradict the daughter of the Federal Constitution, the latter shall prevail. [14] the amendment of the Federal Constitution, there is no guarantee for the enforcement of the curfew will

for young people in Malaysia.

* original document notes possible. Please send me an email to mahyuddindaud86@yahoo.com if you want a copy of this document.


active adult communities Dallas