An Arkansas town has recently been so plagued by crimes (ranging from drive by shootings to home invasions), that the city has voted to place parts of the town on lock down. A 24 hour curfew has been put in place and anyone violating that curfew is subject to being stopped by police and, if they cannot sufficiently explain themselves, placed under arrest. In some areas, one may be in violation of the curfew simply for being out of doors, even if they are on their own property.
Reactions by citizens to the curfew have been mixed, with some believing it's absolutely necessary to stop the rash of crime that has them living in fear of their safety and others believing it's gone too far and is violating their rights. The ACLU agrees with the latter and has threatened to sue the city if they do not cease and desist.
Today, CNN reported that during the council session last night, the City Council voted unanimously to extend the curfew to other areas of the city.
Mayor James Valley was reported as saying; "Now if somebody wants to use us, they have an option to sue, but I'm fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the citizens see it here. The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is okay and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution."
Having lived in Arkansas for most of my life, I'm at least nominally familiar with the city in question. West Helena ranks just below Tunica in the eyes of Arkansans. That means, of course, that for some it's the next best place to heaven since they can skip down and blow a fortune at the gaming tables that riddle the area. Others view it as the closest thing to hell, where evil sucks out your soul through your wallet and you're too stupid to even realize it is happening.
Welcome to the Bible Belt, my friends.
The story hasn't received much attention in Arkansas though the national media has begun to run with it. And why is that?
Citywide curfews aren't anything new in the area in question. In 2006, a citywide curfew was put in place because, you guessed it, crime was through the roof. During that stint of curfewiness, people were placed under lock and key from 10p to 5a Sunday through Thursday and 11p to 5a on weekends for much the same reason. Once things calmed and crime was back to normal levels, the curfew was lifted and people went about their lives as if nothing had happened.
And therein lays the problem.
One would think that instead of getting back to life as normal after having had to put a curfew in place because of crime, the citizens of the town would have taken the initiative to ensure that it didn't have occasion to happen again. Responding to crime through extreme measures only when crime is out of control may temporarily solve the issue, but eventually those temporary measures will be completed and crime will once again begin to creep up.
Instead of slapping curfews onto the city whenever that happens, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to continually address the issue. Starting neighborhood watches, establishing a tipline, getting creative with community policing, and tailoring policing and crime prevention methods to meet the needs of the city consistently makes infinitely more sense than waiting until the problem has once again spiraled out of control to react.
So, knowing it has happened before, it doesn't really surprise me that West Helena is once again curfew city. And, to be honest, I'm not particularly sympathetic to their plight. Yes, it bothers me greatly that the people in charge have this entire "we aren't violating the Constitution, but even if we were, it would be okay" blasé attitude, but it's hard to feel sympathy for people who put themselves in that position by supporting it the first time around.
It seems obvious to me that if you allow something once, those in charge are going to assume that, if the need arises, you'll be game a second time. And, if they happen to make it a little tougher that second time around, well... you didn't complain the first time, nor did you do much after that first time to ensure that a second time would be unnecessary, so surely that means you're okay with it the second time.
Perhaps you aren't, but you didn't speak up then so why should they assume that you're going to put your foot down this time and tell them that under no circumstances are you willingly going to allow them to maintain that "the Constitution can be violated if we say it's okay" attitude? Unless you're willing to fight yourselves out of the mess that has been created... I'm not willing to cluck my tongue, say poor babies and fight for you.
The government should NOT tell you where to be and when. That's absolutely ridiculous. There are so many other ways of plugging crime. Like you said, neighborhood watch programs, and a tipline. Prevention programs in the schools. Putting more cops on duty, in the areas that need it most.
I'm not against reasonable curfews, especially in larger cities (people under 18 not allowed out alone after 11pm, or states of emergency, etc), but that 24 hour curfew seems more like unreasonable lockdown than curfew and crosses the line.
The situation you mentioned toward the end is generally known as a slippery slope, but the sad part is that such a situation can and has happened. Many laws put into place over time would not have made it far if they had been enacted all at once. That's because they make several small changes that build upon previous statutes and are basically "this is just a small action to help improve {insert thing here}." Small actions add up, however.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I am reminded of a Regan quote but I can not bring the words to my mind or find them through google.. Some thing to the affect of 'people willing to sacrifice their rights for security are not worthy of freedom'. Maybe somebody else said something like that?
What does twenty four hour curfew mean? To me it sounds like no one is allowed outside with out a good reason. and it makes very mad.
If we do not fight for them now, there will be no one to protect us when our turn comes.
~T
A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins. ~Benjamin Franklin
Ben Franklin said the quote you're thinking of. The way I've heard it most is "those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security;" the original quote is "those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," but is paraphrased many different ways.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
No wonder I could not find it under Regan. I was watching one of RR's old televised talks in which he quotes that and I naturally figured he was the one that said that. I should have known... BF said many cool things.
Thanks Dragonwolf for setting me straight.
~T
A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins. ~Benjamin Franklin
If we do not fight for them now, there will be no one to protect us when our turn comes.
Perhaps, but if they aren't willing to fight for themselves, do you really think they'd be willing to fight for you when and if the time came? I have no objections to fighting alongside them... but unless they're willing to get up and do something, what's to stop this exact thing from happening in another 2 years when crime is once again out of control because they couldn't be bothered to get off of their asses and do something about it? Its at that point that I can't justify fighting for them. You have to be willing to do something to change your circumstances if you expect others to line up with you. Until the point at which that happens, standing up for them is, to me, pointless. I'd rather stand up for someone who is trying and getting no where than for someone who does nothing and then cries about how unfair it is. At some point, one has to be willing to attempt to save oneself from stupidity if they want others to assist.
I mean, they knew 2 years ago that there was a problem with crime. Why in the world did the community do nothing to ensure the same thing didn't happen again instead of standing back and watching as it went to hell in a handbasket again?!
It makes less sense the more sense I try to make of it.
-----
Like writing? So do we!
~Fallon~
"If I fall asleep with a pen in my hand, don't remove it - I might be writing in my dreams."- Pace
-----
Maybe someone should tell them they can fight for themselves and that the police do not have sole resposibility to protect them. We need to take care of our selves and our people. If we could point in the right direction, maybe that would be enough fight to get the job done.
I feel so hippie and peace loving right now...
Kumbaya...
~T
A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins. ~Benjamin Franklin
The council has surely overreacted. They may mean well, too, but such an extreme crackdown is unwarranted and really just plain worrisome. What they need is more police (and more funding for the police) and tougher punishments for criminals (especially violent and repeat offenders). While it's probably true that the threat of harsher prison terms does not deter most perpetrators (pretty much all criminals have a "I won't be caught anyway" attitude), eventually, criminals will be removed (hopefully for a long, long time) from the streets.
Some may criticize my advocacy of tougher policing and punishments as hardly better than the 24-hour curfew. After all, both may be considered overextended government power, and some critics may be wary of this solution as being a step towards a police state. But, unlike the curfew ordinance, the sentencing of criminals is subject to the American justice system and the public input (through a jury).